This is a highly scientific survey that will decide once and for all exactly what percentage of the time the 2 meter sentences (as utilized prior to 2005: mandatory) has on the strategic thinking of disc golfers at PDGA tournaments.

The two-meter rule comes to mind 100% of the time on certain holes and 0% on other holes.

It comes into my mind 100% when I am stuck above 2 meters.
Otherwise, I don't think about it at all. Why would I put a self-fullfilling prophecy thought in my head prior to throwing other than the one about hitting the chains or hitting a certain line or spot.
Now, an OB hazard tends to make me think a throw out a little more.

can't answer this broadly.

it's hole and course specific. among the nasty disc eating cedars at seneca, i frequently think strategically to put it on the ground and not risk getting stuck. at my home course (druid), getting stuck above two meters is a rare occurence and only happens occasionally on 2-3 holes.

Wow, a well thought out survey! I think you should go hang with Rove. 70% of the answers skewed to your own opinion. Nice.

Wow, a well thought out survey! 70% of the answers skewed to your own opinion. Nice.



Would you expect any differently from Him?

I agree, it is hole and course specific. For example, at the Willy in Houston, I almost never think about it, there are few holes where I am likley to stick. However, on my practice course I think of it often. On the other hand, I agree with Yeti, I don't think about it as I throw, I think about it in my pre-hole planning.

I agree, it is hole and course specific. For example, at the Willy in Houston, I almost never think about it, there are few holes where I am likley to stick. However, on my practice course I think of it often. On the other hand, I agree with Yeti, I don't think about it as I throw, I think about it in my pre-hole planning.



<font color="green"> exactly what percentage of the time the 2 meter sentences (as utilized prior to 2005: mandatory) has on the strategic thinking of disc golfers at PDGA tournaments. </font>

So this is asking the percentage of time you consider the 2 meter sentences over the entire time you are playing a PDGA rounds. So across all holes and courses you play, not just one specific hole or course.

Example: During the recent World Championships I thought about the 2 meter rule, when strategizing how to play a hole, during all rounds, precisely 0% of the time.

The only time it came up is when Nate Doss struck a tree 40 feet up and 20 feet below the tee pad some 900 feet from the pin, and what a total farce it would have been if it had trickled to 2.01 meters above the playing surface and he had had to take a penalty throw for it.

Another example: At Lums Pond last weekend, shooting a round with Tim Kady, the 2 meter sentences entered my thinking during the round exactly 0% of the time.

Yet another: Seneca Creek Soiree (past 15 years) I have thought about the 2 meter sentences, at all, during rounds less than 1% of the time, and nothing to do with strategy. It's when I see the 50 some-odd 2 meter poles sticking out under trees, usually in one of the 15 roller paths from tee to pin I am considering. (And I choose rollers not because they avoid the 2 meter penalty, but because they give me the best chance of completing the hole in the fewest strokes.)

Hope that clarifies it for you.

wow! it took saying an awful lot to really just say nothing at all.

I don't see the 2.01 'thing' as a farce, I see it as an added element of risk a player should be aware of, when the rule is implemented....I hope the choice of invoking this bit of scoring hijinx is never totally eliminated.

wow! it took saying an awful lot to really just say nothing at all.



Paul, more accurate to say that you just don't understand at all. Are you a 100 Percenter? That might explain it considering there is no time for you to comprehend anything else because you spend so much time thinking about the 2 meter sentences... :p

what percentage of the time do you consider the OB line?

WHAT? there is no OB line on that hole? oh my, better answer 0% and "prove" a point!

RETAR[/B]DED!!!!

As long as I know the rule prior to the event I'm not that concerned one way or the other the rule.
The only time I change my thinking on a shot will be when its going to be a softly thrown upshot and there are trees very close to the basket. Instead of risking a putter or midrange being easily caught, I would switch and throw a skip shot around or under the tree or a spike hyzer with an XTreme over it.

Off the tee if its my best chance to birdie I work under the assumption the tree won't catch it.The sad thing is I've yet to have a drive caught in events where the 2-meter wasn't used. It only catches when its a stroke. Somebody quit tipping off the tree.

The only time I think of the 2 meter rule is if a tree is in play. Then I try to stay out of it, KNOWING that I am going to get a penalty if if I get stuck.
It's a good rule! It adds to the game! This 2 meter arguement has been going on for what, two years now?

It's gettin; pretty old!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

In the absence of the 2 meter rule, you'll soon learn that staying out of trees is still a good idea since they are obstacles even without the 2 meter rule!

what percentage of the time do you consider the OB line?

WHAT? there is no OB line on that hole? oh my, better answer 0% and "prove" a point!

RETAR[/B]DED!!!!



LOL! Not on a single hole, but over all PDGA Tournament Rounds on all of the courses and holes you have played, what percentage of the time do you spend factoring the 2 meter rule into your strategy?

As an aside, it would be interesting to see what the percentages would be across the same time span but only on holes where there is ANY likelihood of a 2 meter or OB violation.

At Seneca there is some likelihood of a 2 meter violation on every hole, yet I never include it in any of my strategizing (and it only enters my thoughts when someone actually sticks 2 meters up). That would be 0% of the time. Whereas, Seneca has OB on about six holes and it enters my strategizing on each of those holes. That would be 100% of the time.

Does this help to make my point? LOL!

LOL

no not really. LOL. your only point is your thumb LOL, and that is firmly imbedded in a dark nasty place. LOL

amazing that you are so passionate about the need to obliterate a rule you never think of! LOL

LOL further proof that your vision is limited to your very narrow perspective. LOL

it must feel so confining to live in such a tiny little world. i actually feel sorry for you nick.

You play in a tourney.

You think PDGA.

You think message board.

You think Nick Kight.

You think 2m discussion and survey that is going nowhere.

You think of it 100% of the time.



Be honest, and check the 100% button, 'cause everyone on this thread will think about it 100% of the time. Even the players that play the HotFoot Open in the dunes.

The 2M rule is NEVER part of my strategy when I'm considering a shot on a hole. If the trees are a real problem I'll throw a roller...not because of a penalty but because of the trees as an obstacle. I don't believe anyone would change their shot selection if the 2M rule went away. What percent of shots actually stay in a tree that you hit? 1% or even less. I had a disc stick in a tree today it was the first time in 2 months. That includes practice throws. I figure about 600 drives that could stick in a tree. Some courses with a lot of trees and some with a few. What is that? .001666 of the throws stayed in the tree! Anyone knows, it's almost always worth the risk to just throw your shot and not worry too much about a penalty.

all those numbers are conjecture. some trees are sieves. some are like disc glue. statements like "only X of Y stick" have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion about the rule. if they did, we would also be saying things like "only 1 of 600 rollers turn over and go OB, so lets abolish that OB line".

but i'm sure you are now nick's good buddy :D

I don't believe anyone would change their shot selection if the 2M rule went away.


I don't understand this statement in light of the fact that people have written that at some holes, they have considered the 2MR when they throw.

Hope you're not calling them liars.

I'll accept that you don't ever consider the 2MR in your shot selection -- that's your choice. But I think you should accept that other people have their own minds and come to their own conclusions, too.

I am just being honest. Nothing more. I'm certainly not trying to make a new buddy in Nick. If the rule stays or goes it won't change much for me. I do think it's a weird rule. But I listened to Charlton Howard on PDGA radio discussing the 2M rule and I agree 100% with what he says. If I had the power to change the rule I would. I would keep the penalty with up to 2M relief (no closer to the hole) to eliminate the double penalty aspect of the current rule.

some trees are sieves. some are like disc glue.



<font color="blue"> and some are like glue one moment and like a sieve the next. the most sticky trees i find are cedars. and in my experience even cedars drop discs out as often as they catch and hold them. my strategy with regard to trees doesn't involve the 2 meter rule -- just like my strategy on a 40 foot putt doesn't involve worrying about my disc hitting metal, landing on its edge and rolling out of sight (both scenarios being highly unlikely). My strategy with trees takes into consideration the fact that hitting a tree leads to highly unpredictable deflections. </font>


statements like "only X of Y stick" have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion about the rule. if they did, we would also be saying things like "only 1 of 600 rollers turn over and go OB, so lets abolish that OB line".



<font color="blue"> that's a very poor analogy so you're not really helping your case. we aren't saying let's eliminate trees because most discs that hit trees don't stick. trees are still obstacles that affect the way good players approach a hole. hitting a tree isn't generally helpful, and anyone who mistakenly thinks that hitting trees is an easy way to shoot better golf needs to play a few rounds without the 2 meter rule and see how long it takes for them to adjust their opinion to the empirical evidence. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>

LOL

no not really. LOL. your only point is your thumb LOL, and that is firmly imbedded in a dark nasty place. LOL

amazing that you are so passionate about the need to obliterate a rule you never think of! LOL

LOL further proof that your vision is limited to your very narrow perspective. LOL

it must feel so confining to live in such a tiny little world. i actually feel sorry for you nick.



You need a break Pat. You're losing it.

OK.

Let's change that to; I find it hard to believe anyone would change their shot selection if the 2M rule went away.

OK.

Let's change that to; I find it hard to believe anyone would change their shot selection if the 2M rule went away.




Apparently when the 2 meter rule is eliminated, Pat and Paul are going to change their strategy and attempt to hit trees and believe that will work to their advantage... :confused:

after a few rounds trying out that strategy they'll probably begin to see the light :D

nice mistatement, rob, but what else is new.

when the 2MR is not in effect i will absolutely go over the top when the shot is available. i will do so with no fear of being smacked with a penalty when i stick way up there.

please refrain from stating the position of others. you have proven over and over that you can not understand a simple scenario like this.

nice mistatement, rob, but what else is new.



<font color="blue"> your hypocritical accusation above is old hat </font>


when the 2MR is not in effect i will absolutely go over the top when the shot is available. i will do so with no fear of being smacked with a penalty when i stick way up there.



<font color="blue"> evidently you mistakenly think going over the top loses its risk/reward when the 2 meter rule is eliminated. Once the 2 meter rule is eliminated and you go over the top more often -- you'll learn trees are still obstacles that generally punish you in unpredictable ways when you hit them </font>


please refrain from stating the position of others. you have proven over and over that you can not understand a simple scenario like this.



<font color="blue"> Pat, do you not see the hilarious irony involved in your making that statement? When you point your accusatory finger at others, remember that your four other fingers are pointing right back at you. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>

Just finished a round and the 2-meter rule never crossed my mind. Had one go OB in the water, but that too is just part of the game. I guess I just don't see the problem with the 2M rule!

MAybe the only real solution to this debate is to cut down all the trees and replace them with billboards. Yup, billboards. We can sell the sponsor space while using them as obstacles. Win, win situation for disc golf.

OK.

Let's change that to; I find it hard to believe anyone would change their shot selection if the 2M rule went away.




Apparently when the 2 meter rule is eliminated, Pat and Paul are going to change their strategy and attempt to hit trees and believe that will work to their advantage... :confused:

after a few rounds trying out that strategy they'll probably begin to see the light :D


Rob, where is your logic? Just where is it?

Discs that stick in trees are the result of bad throws. You think saying so means all other throws are good. NOT TRUE. THAT'S FAULTY LOGIC.

The 2MR causes some people to reevaluate their shots at some holes. You say believing so means if the 2MR goes away, then we will start aiming at trees. NOT TRUE. THAT'S FAULTY LOGIC.

Ye gods, where is Socrates when we need him?

Just finished a round and the 2-meter rule never crossed my mind. Had one go OB in the water, but that too is just part of the game. I guess I just don't see the problem with the 2M rule!


Tell me about all the other rules that didn't cross your mind, too. Do you therefore favor the elimination of all of them?

My point is many rules are made for special cases. The 2MR is one of them.

The mandatory rule, for example, is another. In 2 years, I've only run into 2 mandatories so far in playing disc golf. Still, I'm not going to advocate the removal of that rule because of its rarity.

Understand, Paul, I'm all for the 2M rule! I agree with you. What I don't understand is why some people get so agitated with 2M! Just get a rock, knock yer disc out of the tree, take yer penalty like a man and continue on.

I think some folks just like to whine! :D

Again, Paul, clever but inaccurate and misleading.

Neither Rob nor I advocate "frequency" as a necessity for a rule to be a rule. This "specific" discussion has to do with Pat citing the frequency of the 2 meter rule entering folks strategy during PDGA rounds (hopefully the prime example of rules of play coming into players thoughts) as a basis for maintaining it as a mandatory rule. He feels that it would significantly change "the game" of disc golf if the 2 meter rule is removed or left up to the TD. Rob, I and others argue that it would not.

There is the argument. And I think that we have clearly won that argument, in that it rarely if ever enters a players thoughts as concerns strategy on a hole and therefore is not really a factor, even on holes where it is highly likely to occur.

Once the 2 meter sentences are moved to the glossary as an option similar to OB, then it, like OB, can be used for specific purposes, and where it will have a high likelyhood of effecting strategy and not just as a unprecedented blanket penalty throw worthy hazard unlike any currently in our rules of play. It will be come a tool designers can use or not use according to need, rather than just some blanket rule aimlessly tacking penalty throws onto players scores.

Personally, I don't see any use for it. At best it is a crutch for poor hole design.



Just finished a round and the 2-meter rule never crossed my mind. Had one go OB in the water, but that too is just part of the game. I guess I just don't see the problem with the 2M rule!


Tell me about all the other rules that didn't cross your mind, too. Do you therefore favor the elimination of all of them?

My point is many rules are made for special cases. The 2MR is one of them.

The mandatory rule, for example, is another. In 2 years, I've only run into 2 mandatories so far in playing disc golf. Still, I'm not going to advocate the removal of that rule because of its rarity.

Neither Rob nor I advocate "frequency" as a necessity for a rule to be a rule...

...it rarely if ever enters a players thoughts as concerns strategy on a hole and therefore is not really a factor, even on holes where it is highly likely to occur.


Nick contradicts himself again!

Neither Rob nor I advocate "frequency" as a necessity for a rule to be a rule...

...it rarely if ever enters a players thoughts as concerns strategy on a hole and therefore is not really a factor, even on holes where it is highly likely to occur.


Nick contradicts himself again!



Only according to your misleading and off topic criteria. We are not talking about frequency of the violation, but frequency of the rule entering a players strategic thoughts.

It clearly does not.

That does not prove that the rule should be removed.

It proves that removal of the rule would not significantly (if at all) effect players strategic thinking, and therefore would not significantly change the way in which we play our game (fairly).

Once the 2 meter sentences are moved to the glossary as an option similar to OB, then it, like OB, can be used for specific purposes, and where it will have a high likelyhood of effecting strategy and not just as a unprecedented blanket penalty throw worthy hazard unlike any currently in our rules of play. It will be come a tool designers can use or not use according to need, rather than just some blanket rule aimlessly tacking penalty throws onto players scores.



game, set, match.

Neither Rob nor I advocate "frequency" as a necessity for a rule to be a rule...

...it rarely if ever enters a players thoughts as concerns strategy on a hole and therefore is not really a factor, even on holes where it is highly likely to occur.


Nick contradicts himself again!



Only according to your misleading and off topic criteria.


Yawn.

We are not talking about frequency of the violation, but frequency of the rule entering a players strategic thoughts.

It clearly does not.

That does not prove that the rule should be removed.

It proves that removal of the rule would not significantly (if at all) effect players strategic thinking, and therefore would not significantly change the way in which we play our game (fairly).


Maybe you can explain again why you're so all fired up about removing a rule that you think everyone's ignoring anyway?

Or are you in the same camp that Rob's in? If (you think) the top players are ignoring the rule, then everyone's ignoring the rule, is that it?

Neither Rob nor I advocate "frequency" as a necessity for a rule to be a rule...

...it rarely if ever enters a players thoughts as concerns strategy on a hole and therefore is not really a factor, even on holes where it is highly likely to occur.


Nick contradicts himself again!



Only according to your misleading and off topic criteria.


Yawn.

We are not talking about frequency of the violation, but frequency of the rule entering a players strategic thoughts.

It clearly does not.

That does not prove that the rule should be removed.

It proves that removal of the rule would not significantly (if at all) effect players strategic thinking, and therefore would not significantly change the way in which we play our game (fairly).


Maybe you can explain again why you're so all fired up about removing a rule that you think everyone's ignoring anyway?

Or are you in the same camp that Rob's in? If (you think) the top players are ignoring the rule, then everyone's ignoring the rule, is that it?



What ? That's funny stuff.

Maybe you can explain again why you're so all fired up about removing a rule that you think everyone's ignoring anyway?

Or are you in the same camp that Rob's in? If (you think) the top players are ignoring the rule, then everyone's ignoring the rule, is that it?



why are you bothering to ask disingenuous questions?
Nick stated the possibility that the 2 meter rule will penalize a given route to a pin rarely if ever enters his head when he plays a hole. He didn't say he ignores the 2 meter rule when he gets stuck above 2 meters.

I don't generally consider the 2 meter rule because hitting a tree is generally penalty enough without a 2 meter rule.

The PDGA Board has already voted for the elimination of the 2 meter rule as a force-fed scenario beginning in 2006. The 2 meter rule will be in the glossary and can be invoked for those holes, courses, or TD's that can't seem to live without it.

Embrace the future. the 2 meter rule is beginning to get rigamortis ...

rigor mortis

The PDGA Board has already voted for the elimination of the 2 meter rule as a force-fed scenario beginning in 2006.

Is this true? No such vote ever occured while I was on the Board. No such vote is recorded in the published minutes. Did they vote on this in June or July?

Bruce, didn't you report that the BoD approved the RC recommendation to eliminate the 2 meter rule as a default scenario and that the only reason it is delayed till 2006 is because there was a problem getting the 2005 rule book printed to reflect the new rule in time?

Have you decided to try and block the change? Was the printing issue a delay tactic? is this a conspiracy to resuscitate the dying 2 meter rule? :o:D

Bruce is no longer on the PDGA Board of Directors. I could speculate as to why that is so, but that would be similar to Bruce speculating as to why the remaining board members would ignore the recommendations of the PDGA Rules Committee for no pertinent reason.

Maybe you can explain again why you're so all fired up about removing a rule that you think everyone's ignoring anyway?



(He asked the question folks, I�m just doing my best to help him out and provide an answer.)

I am not all �fired up�, I simply see it as just another in a long line of rules updates that improve �fairness� and the �elegance� of our rules of play.

Besides, �ignoring� implies that it enters their thoughts and is purposefully pushed aside; when what is more accurate is to say that it never enters their thinking �at all�.


Or are you in the same camp that Rob's in? If (you think) the top players are ignoring the rule, then everyone's ignoring the rule, is that it?



Again, they are not �ignoring the rule�, it just doesn�t enter their thoughts as they formulate the best way to get the lowest score on a specific hole. Even one with a high probability of the disc coming to rest 2 meters above the playing surface.

The only point I am making is that the argument that the 2 meter rule significantly (if at all) effects PDGA event participants strategy on specific holes is not a valid or convincing one in defense of maintaining the mandatory blanket 2 meter rule sentences within our rulebook. That removing it will not change �the spirit of our game�.

Mainly it will just stop the practice of adding penalty throws to players scores for a nearly unforeseeable or unavoidable infraction (thus being as similar to being penalized for your disc coming to rest upside down as any rule we have), and thereby increasing �fairness of play�.

I'm not sure what I said then when I was Terry's puppet, but whatever I said reflected a sense of the Board's intent rather than what was voted and approved. I am aware of only two rules votes. One was a constitutionally irregular vote to adopt the interim two meter rule that we currently have. The other was a constitutionally irregular vote to adopt the the full package of rules changes produced by the joint BoD/RC meeting. The second vote failed for lack of a quorum and was never reported in the minutes.

After the 2004 rules revision fiasco Dan Roddick proposed and the Board wisely adopted a rules revision process with specific timeframes and deadlines for any future rules revisions. The purpose of the process was to ensure that any changes to the rules would be made in an orderly and deliberative manner. If they are following that process, it would seem, from reading the minutes, that further rules changes are not being proposed for 2006.

Bruce that is different from the understanding I got from public announcements.

Though I have some experience in administration, I am not going to presume to tell the PDGA Board of Directors or the PDGA Rules Committee what or how they should execute their duties. I just appreciate from afar, in full knowledge that I would not want to do what they do.

My understanding from discussions and reports is that the 2005 Rules Update was provided by the PDGA Rules Committee and approved by the PDGA Board of Directors pending grammatical clean up for the printed rulebook. When it was determined that this was not possible prior to the printing of the much-needed 2005 �PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf� rulebooks, it was postponed until the next year or printing.

This is the official line provided. Are you saying that something else is the case Bruce?

Perhaps it is time for the PDGA Communications Director to clarify exactly what is going on here?

A. Why were the 2005 Rules Revisions shelved?
B. Is the PDGA Board of Directors going to revise the recommendations of the PDGA Rules Committee? If so, which revisions are being reviewed?
C. Will they be instated for the 2006 PDGA Tour? If not when?

constitutionally irregular



couldn't you save the spin for your throws? :D

constitutionally irregular



couldn't you save the spin for your throws? :D



Yea........Spin Doctor..........What political affiliation ? :D

Mainly it will just stop the practice of adding penalty throws to players scores for a nearly unforeseeable or unavoidable infraction (thus being as similar to being penalized for your disc coming to rest upside down as any rule we have), and thereby increasing �fairness of play�.



Scenario:

2 Putts are thrown at a basket. Both "Dink" Low. 1 stays where it lies...The other rolls 40 feet away. :o

Sounds like "LUCK" to me..or "Bad Luck" which ever putt was mine

So I propose that if it rolls away you get to take it from under the basket, because it was "UNLUCKY" to have it roll away.


It just about as UNLUCKY for a Throw to stick in a Tree.....eh! :p

If you dont throw in the tree, your disc wont stick........ /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The PDGA Board has already voted for the elimination of the 2 meter rule as a force-fed scenario beginning in 2006.

Is this true? No such vote ever occured while I was on the Board. No such vote is recorded in the published minutes. Did they vote on this in June or July?



Its funny, :(, how the "Chairman" of the Environmental Commitee was NEVER asked for input on this matter. :(

I guess "Trees" dont matter... :confused:

The PDGA Board has already voted for the elimination of the 2 meter rule as a force-fed scenario beginning in 2006.

Is this true? No such vote ever occured while I was on the Board. No such vote is recorded in the published minutes. Did they vote on this in June or July?



Its funny, :(, how the "Chairman" of the Environmental Commitee was NEVER asked for input on this matter. :(

I guess "Trees" dont matter... :confused:



When did this all take place ? :( I never had a chance to vote on this :confused:

The PDGA Board has already voted for the elimination of the 2 meter rule as a force-fed scenario beginning in 2006.

Is this true? No such vote ever occured while I was on the Board. No such vote is recorded in the published minutes. Did they vote on this in June or July?



Its funny, :(, how the "Chairman" of the Environmental Commitee was NEVER asked for input on this matter. :(

I guess "Trees" dont matter... :confused:



When did this all take place ? :( I never had a chance to vote on this :confused:



WE dont get to vote on these type of things any more Donny...

Somewhere along the line the PDGA Board decided that it was much easier to just "Change the Rules" however they see fit.

It created many problems when the voting public was "Split" on an issue...So instead we are "forced" to live with what a "Minority" thinks....Kind of like "Socialism", except we dont get "Health Care" :p

:(

While we all have different opinions on this rule, the argument that the PDGA BOD should simply follow the majority seems pretty weak to me. Like most leaders, they are charged with making decisions for the good of the game, not to simply limit their decisions to popular ones. That is a poor way to govern and is usually the antithesis of leadership.

While we all have different opinions on this rule, the argument that the PDGA BOD should simply follow the majority seems pretty weak to me. Like most leaders, they are charged with making decisions for the good of the game, not to simply limit their decisions to popular ones. That is a poor way to govern and is usually the antithesis of leadership.



I believe that this is a "Major" part of the disapproval by the players on the 2 meter rule change. Who says that it is a "Majority" that wants the change???

We have NEVER voted on it...so there is no true way of knowing what the "Majority" thinks.

Its easier to play "GOD" and just force the change /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

:)

While we all have different opinions on this rule, the argument that the PDGA BOD should simply follow the majority seems pretty weak to me. Like most leaders, they are charged with making decisions for the good of the game, not to simply limit their decisions to popular ones. That is a poor way to govern and is usually the antithesis of leadership.



I believe that this is a "Major" part of the disapproval by the players on the 2 meter rule change. Who says that it is a "Majority" that wants the change???

We have NEVER voted on it...so there is no true way of knowing what the "Majority" thinks.

Its easier to play "GOD" and just force the change /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

:)



:eek: Force the change. Yea , that's better than asking the Real people :mad: I thought , being a PDGA member , I could voice my opinion , in an honest election :confused:

My mistake , I said Honest Election. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'll accept the premise that the majority wants to keep the 2m rule. It's probably true, but so what. The majority of players at one time probably wanted to allow pot smoking and drinking during sanctioned rounds.

The BOD should make decisions on their own merit, not on poll results.

I think that if there is a raft of rules changes in 2006 as were proposed for 2005, we will probably get to vote on some of them. The Board is aware of the constitutional provision regarding their obligation to determine whether a rules change is sufficiently significant that it should be put to a membership vote. Given the discussion on this website, one would have to conclude that the 2-meter rule and perhaps stroke and distance for lost disc and undesirable lie are significant changes. The meeting minutes suggest that a membership vote on some of the rules changes is being contemplated, but they don't say which rules.

I'll accept the premise that the majority wants to keep the 2m rule. It's probably true, but so what. The majority of players at one time probably wanted to allow pot smoking and drinking during sanctioned rounds.

The BOD should make decisions on their own merit, not on poll results.



I have seen folks , DQ'd for pot smoking in the parking lot.

For Rules that Directly Effect my play , I would like to Vote on them , before being made to feel like a foreigner.

The 20 to 30% that vote have been voting on this at a 50 50 split for years already. It is time to give the other 50 there time and see just how "significant" or "major" this rule change really is rather than what the usual sky is falling suspects never tire of whining about.

I agree . What can we do , as players , to get this ball rolling ?

I agree . What can we do , as players , to get this ball rolling ?

a) cut down all the treees
b) if A is not practical, throw a route around the trees that are left.

seriously folks, if this should come to an honest vote, PLEASE remember that in golf we play from where our last attempt ends. if play cannot continue from that place, then a penalty is assessed.

the 2MR is consistent with the heart and soul of the game. before even considering any argument for eliminating the 2MR, PLEASE reconcile how penalty free relief from an errant result is conisistent with the deepest and most fundamental tenet of the sport.

if you still are somehow able to favor the elimination of the rule and can accept the change to the game that results, then PLEASE consider what type of change is the easiest to accomplish and the least disruptive to players and courses. i submit that keeping the 2MR as the default scenario is better in both regards. it is easier because it only requires a change for TDs who wish to remove the rule. those who wish to keep it need say nothing. it is the least disruptive path not only because it is a much smaller step that accomplishes the same objective but also because it eliminates the need to change course and tee signs around the country.

i dropped at least two places at Am Worlds in Flagstaff because of the 2MR. i knew the risk, i chose to pursue the reward. the tree won... i lost the gamble and paid a measurable, and fairly steep, price. AND THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE!

penalty free relief does not belong in the game of golf. i believe most of us will think this through and focus on the deeper meaning of the game, and then we will decide, if given the chance, to retain the 2MR at the very minimum as the default scenario.

This isn't ball golf.

Our basic tenet is to play from the best area we can reach while standing on the playing surface direcly below the last throw came to rest. Unless there is a solid or casual object there that can't be moved, or some other inconvient distraction like a hornet's nest. :cool:

thats right its not. it IS GOLF, and thats what counts. play it where it ended. comeon gary, i dont get to be a fiundamentalist very often, let me have my moment :D

The 2 meter rule should only be in effect if a TD invokes it. The Rules Committee has made its decision, and 2005 is working well.

suddenly everyone wants to have equal decision making power with those on the RC, even though they haven't earned it ... As was recently pointed out -- there has been roughly a 50/50 split over the use or non-use of the 2 meter penalty since it was created and it is time the non-use camp is given a try.

hitting trees does not suddenly become advantageous with the elimination of the 2 meter rule.

hitting trees does not suddenly become advantageous with the elimination of the 2 meter rule.

well, yes, it actually does. it becomes risk free and therefore advantageous. any "random richocheting" that occurs must necessarily on average net out to the effects of gravity, so forget your old argument about wild carooms into outer space or distant fairways.

but thanks for considering the basic question before spouting your same ol rhetoric. not!

hitting trees does not suddenly become advantageous with the elimination of the 2 meter rule.

well, yes, it actually does. it becomes risk free and therefore advantageous. any "random richocheting" that occurs must necessarily on average net out to the effects of gravity, so forget your old argument about wild carooms into outer space or distant fairways.



Pat, do you really for one moment think that absent the 2 meter rule hitting a tree becomes advantageous?
if that is what you think no wonder you favor the 2 meter rule!
Come play Idlewild sometime and show me how hitting trees helps when the 2 meter rule is not in effect.

Mainly it will just stop the practice of adding penalty throws to players scores for a nearly unforeseeable or unavoidable infraction (thus being as similar to being penalized for your disc coming to rest upside down as any rule we have), and thereby increasing �fairness of play�.



Scenario:

2 Putts are thrown at a basket. Both "Dink" Low. 1 stays where it lies...The other rolls 40 feet away. :o

Sounds like "LUCK" to me..or "Bad Luck" which ever putt was mine

So I propose that if it rolls away you get to take it from under the basket, because it was "UNLUCKY" to have it roll away.


It just about as UNLUCKY for a Throw to stick in a Tree.....eh! :p

If you dont throw in the tree, your disc wont stick........ /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Major and Undeniable Differences:
A) When a player putts, they are usually aiming at the basket with the expectation of sticking in it and holing out. When a player uses a tree as reference for a flight path, sometimes the flight path starts out or crosses on line to the tree, but rarely if ever are any players aiming at the tree with the intention of sticking above 2 meters or even 1 centimeter.
B) It is not a violation of our rules of play, and the player does not get a penalty throw added to their score, for having their putt to hit the tray and roll away. It is a violation of our rules of play, and a player does get a penalty throw (when in effect) added to their score, for having a disc stick 2 meters above the playing surface.

So by the logic of your scenario, it is fair to tack on another penalty throw for missing a putt and rolling away.

Lastly, are you asking us to believe that you are able to though your discs during competition without them ever flying towards a single tree?

I have to question that.

While we all have different opinions on this rule, the argument that the PDGA BOD should simply follow the majority seems pretty weak to me. Like most leaders, they are charged with making decisions for the good of the game, not to simply limit their decisions to popular ones. That is a poor way to govern and is usually the antithesis of leadership.



I believe that this is a "Major" part of the disapproval by the players on the 2 meter rule change. Who says that it is a "Majority" that wants the change???

We have NEVER voted on it...so there is no true way of knowing what the "Majority" thinks.

Its easier to play "GOD" and just force the change /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

:)



This not unlike a TD or region just up and choosing to ignore our agreed upon rules of play, right?

Difference: TDs are expected to follow standards and rules; the PDGA Board of Directors are expected to set our standards and rules.

You might want to worry more about your actions Mike, before you start throwing slighting remarks at folks who are doing what they have been "mandated" to do under our constitution.

Just a suggestion.

Don't think I didn't notice you ducking these questions Bruce. It is one thing to insinuate, it is another to back up what you insinuate. You said that the PDGA Board of Directors did not approve the PDGA Rules Committee's 2005 Rules Updates (with some gramatical tightening) and more. I now ask you to back up your statement with indisputable supporting facts. If you can't then spare us the gossip.


Bruce that is different from the understanding I got from public announcements.

Though I have some experience in administration, I am not going to presume to tell the PDGA Board of Directors or the PDGA Rules Committee what or how they should execute their duties. I just appreciate from afar, in full knowledge that I would not want to do what they do.

My understanding from discussions and reports is that the 2005 Rules Update was provided by the PDGA Rules Committee and approved by the PDGA Board of Directors pending grammatical clean up for the printed rulebook. When it was determined that this was not possible prior to the printing of the much-needed 2005 �PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf� rulebooks, it was postponed until the next year or printing.

This is the official line provided. Are you saying that something else is the case Bruce?

Perhaps it is time for the PDGA Communications Director to clarify exactly what is going on here?

A. Why were the 2005 Rules Revisions shelved?
B. Is the PDGA Board of Directors going to revise the recommendations of the PDGA Rules Committee? If so, which revisions are being reviewed?
C. Will they be instated for the 2006 PDGA Tour? If not when?

hitting trees does not suddenly become advantageous with the elimination of the 2 meter rule.

well, yes, it actually does. it becomes risk free and therefore advantageous. any "random richocheting" that occurs must necessarily on average net out to the effects of gravity, so forget your old argument about wild carooms into outer space or distant fairways.

but thanks for considering the basic question before spouting your same ol rhetoric. not!



The very farcical nature of Pat's own arguments and contentions are all that is needed now to discredit them and any thought that he is being serious about this topic.

He knows, deep down, that the 2 meter sentences hang by a frayed thread. Everyone knows this, that is why all of the end round arguments are being raised up the flagpole yet again.

I'm not saying that they don't truly want the 2 meter sentences to remain our only blanket mandatory penalty throw worthy hazard, they do; the difference is that they now know that it is logically indefensible and that the majorities within the PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA Board of Directors know so. Making it an option in 2006, similar to how it is an option in 2005, but opt in, should satisfy reasonable minded supporters of the 2 meter sentences, but there will be �no compromising� with the few fanatics.

This isn't ball golf.

Our basic tenet is to play from the best area we can reach while standing on the playing surface direcly below the last throw came to rest. Unless there is a solid or casual object there that can't be moved, or some other inconvient distraction like a hornet's nest. :cool:



On the other hand Gary, MANY have stated that the basic philosophy of the game is to play it where it lies. Personally I agree, it is a beautiful idea in my mind.

I agree that it is a beautiful concept, until the lie is under a car, bridge, under a hornet's nest, behind a building, or middle of a thorn bush. Then players tend to forget the beautiful concept and want to be somewhere in the general neighborhood. Even in fairly open fairways, many players fail to throw from where they last ended up, but somewhere in the general neighborhood.

And if playing it where it lies is such a major sticking point, no lie that is above the playing surface is clean and all should be treated the same way. If the disc ends up in a place you can't have a supporting point in contact with at the time of release, it must be moved to be played. Otherwise it is not a consistent application of the rule.

I am not in favor of abolishing the rule, only leaving it up to the discretion of the TD/Designer instead of forcing all courses to use the rule all of the time.

since we throw from approx chest high (for the majority of throw), establishing a "lie" on the "playing surface" does nothing more than provide a reference point for fair play , ie, a player may not release closer to the target, and must be within a given measurement behind that point.

the whole concept of "playing surface" has little value - not even the basket is on the "playing surface".

concepts like "lie" and "playing surface" are at the root of this problem, NOT the 2MR!

This isn't ball golf.

Our basic tenet is to play from the best area we can reach while standing on the playing surface direcly below the last throw came to rest. Unless there is a solid or casual object there that can't be moved, or some other inconvient distraction like a hornet's nest.




On the other hand Gary, MANY have stated that the basic philosophy of the game is to play it where it lies. Personally I agree, it is a beautiful idea in my mind.



Many might have stated it, usually as a lame attempt to justify the 2M rules, but I have yet to hear any meaningful description of what "play it where it lies" means? What the hell does this actually mean?

First up, we physically remove the disc from "where it lies" on every throw. In my almost twenty years of disc golf, I have never seen a disc played from where it lay, and yet this mythical concept is used to support the 2M rule? :confused:

The second, and more troubling aspect for people that use this mythical concept to support the 2M rule is that if this is some inviolate rule that virtually captures the essence of golf, doesn't the 2M rule itself violate the "play it where it lies" argument? Also, why not change the stance rules that allow 30 cm and such? Won't this heresy also bring the wrath of the golf gods down upon us?

I agree that it is a beautiful concept, until the lie is under a car, bridge, under a hornet's nest, behind a building, or middle of a thorn bush. Then players tend to forget the beautiful concept and want to be somewhere in the general neighborhood. Even in fairly open fairways, many players fail to throw from where they last ended up, but somewhere in the general neighborhood.

And if playing it where it lies is such a major sticking point, no lie that is above the playing surface is clean and all should be treated the same way. If the disc ends up in a place you can't have a supporting point in contact with at the time of release, it must be moved to be played. Otherwise it is not a consistent application of the rule.

I am not in favor of abolishing the rule, only leaving it up to the discretion of the TD/Designer instead of forcing all courses to use the rule all of the time.



It's very easy Gary. Read the bottom of my post. If you move your disc then you take a stroke.

The fact is (and this is also to James) we have a clear definition of play it where it lies. That definition is that your lead foot is in the LOP and within 30 cm of your marker. That is a very clear definition and allows a great deal of flexibility at the same time. If you cant' accomplish that then you take a stroke, always, in all cases, all the time, winter or summer, day or night.

Your disc is under a car, well, if you can get your foot in there great, if not you move your disc and take a stroke. Your disc is in a tree, if you can get your foot up there great, if not, move it and take a stroke (keep in mind that I think there should be a provsion that states you can not have both feet off the ground at the same time to prevent people from climbing trees, jungle gyms etc.).

Now if you go back and read your post, well all I did here was reitterate what you wrote. From there it is just a matter of rules obeyance. If the guy on your card cheats you and you say nothing, I've not got a lot of sympathy.

So under your new rule what do you do if your disc is 1.99 meters up in a thick bush?

And would you have a penalty for one over 2 meters? And why or why not?

i would scream "OH MY GOD I'M A LUCKY BASTAGE!"

of course there would be a penalty for disc over 2 meters. there must be a line somewhere.

ya know, you zealots coulda gotten your own way simply by keeping the default as 2MR in effect. then you could have un-enforced it to your hearts desire. our side coulda then asked ahead of an event if the 2MR would be in effect, and make our attendance plans accordingly. but no, you must have it 100% your way, with zero consideration for anyone else's point of view.

ya know, you zealots coulda gotten your own way simply by keeping the default as 2MR in effect. then you could have un-enforced it to your hearts desire. our side coulda then asked ahead of an event if the 2MR would be in effect, and make our attendance plans accordingly. but no, you must have it 100% your way, with zero consideration for anyone else's point of view.



It would be disturbing to think that you believe any part of these strange statements.

TDs wanting any part of the 2 meter rule will always have that or a similar option. You can attend all 1 of them, your own...

The fact is (and this is also to James) we have a clear definition of play it where it lies. That definition is that your lead foot is in the LOP and within 30 cm of your marker. That is a very clear definition and allows a great deal of flexibility at the same time. If you cant' accomplish that then you take a stroke, always, in all cases, all the time, winter or summer, day or night.




Agreed, however this is a far cry from what is usually implied in the "play it where it lies" argument. A better term for your description is "play it by the rules" which allows you to mark a disc resting above ground on the surface below it. That concept is hardly violated by eliminating 2M penalties.

By the way, I believe you can move it from the car in some cases without incurring a penalty.

Seems like Nick forgot that he is driving up to an NT event this weekend that will have the 2m rule in effect. :D

Lyle's post is a great one if you ask me and sure does seem to 'splain the reason for a penalty. The sticking point would be the line of demarcation between penalized movement above the ground/surface and 'free' movement. 2 meters is an easily measured, reasonable distance. I'd be fine with a 'reach' rule, but then again I'm 6'3" tall with long ape-like arms. I'm sure many of the vertically challenged among y'all would tend to disagree.

nick, you know very well that there will always be events that use the 2MR. in a huge percetnage of the country, most if not all events will use it. this country may have elected Bush (well, sort of) but we DO have a brain when it comes to obvious rules.

I'll give you a prediction. If the rule is dropped and is only an option of the TD, in ten years, you will hardly ever see it and people realize what a useless relic it was.

Seems like Nick forgot that he is driving up to an NT event this weekend that will have the 2m rule in effect. :D

Lyle's post is a great one if you ask me and sure does seem to 'splain the reason for a penalty. The sticking point would be the line of demarcation between penalized movement above the ground/surface and 'free' movement. 2 meters is an easily measured, reasonable distance. I'd be fine with a 'reach' rule, but then again I'm 6'3" tall with long ape-like arms. I'm sure many of the vertically challenged among y'all would tend to disagree.



Positively not! I'm definitely height challenged (5foot 8inches). So you have an advantage, life stinks, lets go play. :D

I liken this to the NBA, to make it fair all baskets have to be at 5 feet high. Boring!

I'll give you a prediction. If the rule is dropped and is only an option of the TD, in ten years, you will hardly ever see it and people realize what a useless relic it was.



I agree that is will be forgotten but that has nothing to do with it's usefulness. That is simply human nature.

I am pro choice. I neither want the rule abolished nor required for all events.

If it remains in the rule book as an option for the TD/designer, why should it not be treated in the same manner as OB and special conditions. OB exists in virtually all tournaemnts, but is only in play after it is defined by the TD. Special condition area are used by many TDs to protect fragile areas or protect players from hazardous conditions, but doesn't exist until the TD declares it. What makes the 2M rule so special that it should be treated differently ?

Positively not! I'm definitely height challenged (5foot 8inches). So you have an advantage, life stinks, lets go play. :D

I liken this to the NBA, to make it fair all baskets have to be at 5 feet high. Boring!



That would be awesome!!! Most shots would be unblockable! The ball would be on the way down, so goal tending would be a huge consideration. Can you imagine a guy like Shaq trying to play on a 5 foot high basket??!!?? Pure entertainment with the mental image that is projecting!!! I bet they play a game like that somewhere in the United Kingdom or else in either Australia or New Zealand. They have the coolest, kookiest games.

Positively not! I'm definitely height challenged (5foot 8inches). So you have an advantage, life stinks, lets go play. :D

I liken this to the NBA, to make it fair all baskets have to be at 5 feet high. Boring!



That would be awesome!!! Most shots would be unblockable! The ball would be on the way down, so goal tending would be a huge consideration. Can you imagine a guy like Shaq trying to play on a 5 foot high basket??!!?? Pure entertainment with the mental image that is projecting!!! I bet they play a game like that somewhere in the United Kingdom or else in either Australia or New Zealand. They have the coolest, kookiest games.



"Shaq drives for the hoop... but wait! Muggsy (how tall is that guy anyway?) dives in and knocks it away!" What a block!"

:DI'm still laughing!

I love the poll. You could easily change the title to "How often do you think your disc will hit chains and drop in the basket when throwing off the teepad?" and the answers would probably be the same.

So what would have been a better question?

What percentage of time, when considering the how to play a hole, do you spend considering the 2 meter penalty on a throw where there is any chance of violating the 2 meter rule?

It would still be 0% of the time for me.

Compare that to the stance rule or OB where I consider it in my strategy 100% of the time where there is a possibility of a violation.

(If you're going to complain about the cooking at least provide the fix, otherwise it is just whining. A dish, by the way, that is a favorite around here...)

So under your new rule what do you do if your disc is 1.99 meters up in a thick bush?

And would you have a penalty for one over 2 meters? And why or why not?



Sorry for taking so long to get back.

It depends on the player and how you implement the rule. Strict implementation, it has to be your foot behind the disc, if you can do the splits and get one foot over your head behind the disc you're good to go. Liberal interpretation, any part of your body has to be in the LOP within 30 cm of the disc, if you can get your hand behind the lie, one foot on the ground, and make your throw you're good to go. Of course, either of these throws is a stupid throw to make (someone would nonetheless). Best to take a stroke, move the disc to the ground, and take your throw.

So what would have been a better question?

What percentage of time, when considering the how to play a hole, do you spend considering the 2 meter penalty on a throw where there is any chance of violating the 2 meter rule?

It would still be 0% of the time for me.

Compare that to the stance rule or OB where I consider it in my strategy 100% of the time where there is a possibility of a violation.

(If you're going to complain about the cooking at least provide the fix, otherwise it is just whining. A dish, by the way, that is a favorite around here...)


You know, there are some people who don't consider putting on a seatbelt when getting in a car.

That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a car accident, or that car accidents aren't penalizing enough for people to think about seatbelts.

It just means some people don't think about putting on seatbelts.

And so some people don't think about the 2MR when they throw. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but by itself it's not a persuasive argument.

(And as far as complaining about the cooking, and providing a fix if you don't like it... we're not "whining" about the 2MR, you are. You're trying to "fix it", but many of us don't like the fix you're pushing. So you're asking for an alternative? Okay... stop trying to fix what ain't broke!)

So under your new rule what do you do if your disc is 1.99 meters up in a thick bush?

And would you have a penalty for one over 2 meters? And why or why not?



Sorry for taking so long to get back.

It depends on the player and how you implement the rule. Strict implementation, it has to be your foot behind the disc, if you can do the splits and get one foot over your head behind the disc you're good to go. Liberal interpretation, any part of your body has to be in the LOP within 30 cm of the disc, if you can get your hand behind the lie, one foot on the ground, and make your throw you're good to go. Of course, either of these throws is a stupid throw to make (someone would nonetheless). Best to take a stroke, move the disc to the ground, and take your throw.



So this new rule would also be the end of the 2 meter rule then, right?

So what would have been a better question?

What percentage of time, when considering the how to play a hole, do you spend considering the 2 meter penalty on a throw where there is any chance of violating the 2 meter rule?

It would still be 0% of the time for me.

Compare that to the stance rule or OB where I consider it in my strategy 100% of the time where there is a possibility of a violation.

(If you're going to complain about the cooking at least provide the fix, otherwise it is just whining. A dish, by the way, that is a favorite around here...)


You know, there are some people who don't consider putting on a seatbelt when getting in a car.

That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a car accident, or that car accidents aren't penalizing enough for people to think about seatbelts.

It just means some people don't think about putting on seatbelts.

And so some people don't think about the 2MR when they throw. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but by itself it's not a persuasive argument.

(And as far as complaining about the cooking, and providing a fix if you don't like it... we're not "whining" about the 2MR, you are. You're trying to "fix it", but many of us don't like the fix you're pushing. So you're asking for an alternative? Okay... stop trying to fix what ain't broke!)



I'm glad you see it my way concerning the 2 meters lack of influence on disc golf strategy.

The other side of this is that you are forcing your mandatory penalty throw hazard on every course worldwide, whether they need, want, or agree with it.

I'm glad you see it my way concerning the 2 meters lack of influence on disc golf strategy.


I've no idea what you're talking about here. But at least you're happy, so that's positive.

The other side of this is that you are forcing your mandatory penalty throw hazard on every course worldwide, whether they need, want, or agree with it.


I'm not forcing anything. I'm just somebody who simply asked for the lost disc penalty to be "clarified" or amended if the 2MR is removed. Because my largest complaint is that for unretrievable discs in a tree, I feel the disc is technically lost -- the owner cannot properly identify it -- and it therefore deserves a penalty. If the 2MR is removed and therefore does not apply, then I think the lost-disc rule should be amended to take over for this special case.

When that suggestion was shot down, only then did I fall back to the question: why should we remove the 2MR? That should not be construed as intransigent support for the 2MR, but as a reaction to your intransigent opposition to the 2MR and to any rule modification that would address concerns dealing with its removal.

If you want me to repeat ad nauseum my original position, just as you do, then I could end every post with this: with or without the 2MR, I think we should continue to penalize unretrievable discs in a tree. If we can't get the disc out of the tree after 3 minutes so it can be identified, then I think we should call the disc "lost" and take a penalty. Failing that modification to the rules, I don't understand how we can fully remove the 2MR.

Paul, if the disc cannot be identified it is lost. But if the group sees the disc fly into the tree and not fly out and the appropriate colored disc is found up in the tree at/near where the disc hit the tree -- it is not lost -- it's identified. If the shot is blind and the thrower feels s/he has identified their disc up in a tree -- unless you suspect the thrower of cheating it makes sense to surmise they have id'ed their disc.

by the way -- that problem seems identical with or without the 2 meter rule... in other words -- even with the 2 meter penalty in effect, you still have the same problem if you are of the position the thrower must get his disc down to identify it...
Have you played in tournaments where there was an identification controversy regarding a disc suspended in a tree above 2 meters?

I'm playing in the Cincinnati Flying Pig Open (B tier) this coming weekend at Mt. Airy and Harbin Parks -- and the wise TD is choosing NOT to have the 2 meter rule in effect. I'll let you know if i hear of any suspensions (discs, that is) and if there is any controversy regarding id'ing such discs.

Have you played in tournaments where there was an identification controversy regarding a disc suspended in a tree above 2 meters?



Tahoe Super Tour a few years ago......

Cam Todd threw into a tree and the Disc stuck...everyone saw it go in the tree. Well he marked his lie and played on. A bystander then proceeded to get Cam's disc out as they continued played. Well when that disc came down it was then discovered that it was in fact NOT HIS DISC, but someone elses. He took the appropriate STROKES for playing from the wrong disc and played on.

:p

If you cant get your disc down to PROVE that it is actually yours then it should be a LOST DISC and stroked accordingly. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I agree with Magilla...How do you ever really know that someone isn't throwing a similar looking disc, unless you retrieve it?

With the 2 meter rule waived I would argue for a lost disc penalty every time the disc was not retrieved from a tree.

I agree with Magilla...How do you ever really know that someone isn't throwing a similar looking disc, unless you retrieve it?

With the 2 meter rule waived I would argue for a lost disc penalty every time the disc was not retrieved from a tree.



Let's be fair -- the 2 meter rule has nothing to do with it. You can't get a 2 meter penalty for a disc that is lost since there is no way to establish whether it is or isn't stuck above 2 meters. you mark it where the group last saw the disc and take a lost disc penalty

What percentage of time, when considering the how to play a hole, do you spend considering the 2 meter penalty on a throw where there is any chance of violating the 2 meter rule?

It would still be 0% of the time for me.


I knew you weren't very astute, Nick. Thanks for proving it.

2 weeks on no message-boarding and the same ole stuff stays the same.

hitting trees does not suddenly become advantageous with the elimination of the 2 meter rule.


Rob, it must a very strange part of the country you live in. From your non-changing commentary on hitting trees, I can only conclude that on your course the only trees around are within about 25 feet fo the teepads. In that case, then I would agree that trying to hit those trees would be foolish.

I've played in a few different areas, and without fail there are some holes on most course where there is a backdrop of trees behind a basket or a canopy of trees around the basket. When presented with a low straight shot through a reasonably wide alley versus crashing the trees over the top, I'll take the straight shot due to the possibility of sticking in tree right over the basket. Without the penalty, I'll take the hyzer as it is more predictable and far less risky.

But that's just me. A [I'm a potty-mouth!] that will aim at trees if there is no 2 meter penalty.

BTW, I carefully considered the foliage before launching my discs while at Worlds.

Rhett, if i played the game on paper the 2 meter rule would serve as a deterrent. But as i play in actuality where theory is just that -- the 2 meter rule only applies in very rare instances. I do consider it however when i am throwing to a pin guarded by evergreens (i make sure i throw 1.9 meters or lower when going at the pin).

for over-the-top shots trees (non evergreens) deflect you away from your target far more often than they catch your disc. try it for a few practice rounds and see...

ps: i had hoped your absence from this thread meant you had a change of heart :D instead, it seems you momentarily wised up to the fact that we are only talking to ourselves on the 2 meter threads (and rehashing the same things over and over) :D

for over-the-top shots trees (non evergreens) deflect you away from your target far more often than they catch your disc. try it for a few practice rounds and see...


Rob, that is simply not true. You should actually do the research you claim as gospel. (100 throws exactly the same into exactly the same spot on the same tree.)

Paul, if the disc cannot be identified it is lost. But if the group sees the disc fly into the tree and not fly out and the appropriate colored disc is found up in the tree at/near where the disc hit the tree -- it is not lost -- it's identified.



Gee Rob, then why do we even bother writing our names or other identifying marks on our discs? According to you we only need to play from the first disc we see that is the 'appropriate color'. I'm glad all of mine are periwinkle, but those unfortunate souls throwing white are gonna be real confused.




by the way -- that problem seems identical with or without the 2 meter rule... in other words -- even with the 2 meter penalty in effect, you still have the same problem if you are of the position the thrower must get his disc down to identify it...



Yes, but with the brilliantly-crafted 2m rule in effect the player would be penalized either way.



I'm playing in the Cincinnati Flying Pig Open (B tier) this coming weekend at Mt. Airy and Harbin Parks -- and the wise TD is choosing NOT to have the 2 meter rule in effect.



You have been sleeping with Nick too long. Now all TDs that don't use the elegant 2m rule are stupid?

We had a 2m situation at the Skylands Classic NT event yesterday. A disc was in a tree about 35-40 feet up. It wasn't even a cedar or cedar-type tree. The tee is elevated and the disc caught the top of the tree and dropped about 8 feet and stuck. I was spotting on the hole and watched it the whole way. When I pointed it out to the thrower he said, "Bummer", and took the stroke like a man.

Why does the 2M rule seem to be such a problem? I have noted that the majority of those against the rule seem to be our brothers from the northern U.S.! Are the trees THAT much different up there? Is the rule such a big problem or is it fodder for thread material? As was stated in one thread, "take the penalty like a man"! Some of the arguements show passion while others seem as a by-line in a cheap magazine used as filler. I have followed Nick's arguement on this subject for at least 2 years now and, being Nick, his spin on the subject has become hilarious discussion on the golf courses here in Texas. (Yes, Nick, we have a good laugh at your expense)

For heaven's sake, let's put this ridiculous blather to rest! If you're in a tree/bush up 2 meters or more, take your penalty "like a man" and continue on with the game!
Let's try to find an important rule to discuss.

Kingrat discgolf tipz (http://www.geocities.com/kingrat6931/)

Paul, if the disc cannot be identified it is lost. But if the group sees the disc fly into the tree and not fly out and the appropriate colored disc is found up in the tree at/near where the disc hit the tree -- it is not lost -- it's identified.



Gee Rob, then why do we even bother writing our names or other identifying marks on our discs? According to you we only need to play from the first disc we see that is the 'appropriate color'. I'm glad all of mine are periwinkle, but those unfortunate souls throwing white are gonna be real confused.

<font color="blue"> your condecending misread of my statement is noted </font>



by the way -- that problem seems identical with or without the 2 meter rule... in other words -- even with the 2 meter penalty in effect, you still have the same problem if you are of the position the thrower must get his disc down to identify it...



Yes, but with the brilliantly-crafted 2m rule in effect the player would be penalized either way.

<font color="blue"> you're dodging the point to underscore your pro-2 meter rule stance </font>



I'm playing in the Cincinnati Flying Pig Open (B tier) this coming weekend at Mt. Airy and Harbin Parks -- and the wise TD is choosing NOT to have the 2 meter rule in effect.



You have been sleeping with Nick too long.

<font color="blue"> i have never slept with Nick, except in the broad sense that we both sleep on planet Earth -- i suppose i could sink to your level and accuse you of sleeping with sandalman, but that's too childish </font>

Now all TDs that don't use the elegant 2m rule are stupid?

<font color="blue"> you probably meant to ask whether i am saying all TD's who use the 2 meter rule are unwise. i was simply sayign that Pete Caldwell is wise and as TD he isn't invoking the 2 meter rule. Was my choice of using the word 'wise' to describe him an attempt to point out that there are intelligent TD's who oppose the 2 meter rule as the default scenario for disc golf competition? In a word, yes. </font>


We had a 2m situation at the Skylands Classic NT event yesterday. A disc was in a tree about 35-40 feet up. It wasn't even a cedar or cedar-type tree. The tee is elevated and the disc caught the top of the tree and dropped about 8 feet and stuck. I was spotting on the hole and watched it the whole way. When I pointed it out to the thrower he said, "Bummer", and took the stroke like a man.



<font color="blue"> if you hadn't been spotting would you have argued the disc can't be identified?
i take the penalty stroke when the 2 meter rule is in effect too. from my years of Ultimate experience and other sports in which women compete -- I'd say taking it like a woman is the more evolved approach. In general, when it comes to athletic competition, i find men are far more likely to be argumentative, whiney babies than women. </font>

by the way -- that problem seems identical with or without the 2 meter rule... in other words -- even with the 2 meter penalty in effect, you still have the same problem if you are of the position the thrower must get his disc down to identify it...



Yes, but with the brilliantly-crafted 2m rule in effect the player would be penalized either way.

<font color="blue"> you're dodging the point to underscore your pro-2 meter rule stance </font>


No, he's simply making a point you won't take the time to understand because you think it supports keeping the 2MR. But you can safely admit to this point and still oppose the 2MR on the grounds you've stated. So I suggest you re-read what he said (cross out "brilliantly-crafted" mentally if you need to), re-read what I said, re-read what Magilla said, and re-read what ajones said, and take the time to understand what all of us are trying to convey.

if you hadn't been spotting would you have argued the disc can't be identified?




Yes, if there was no spotter, and if there was no 2m penalty then I'd force the player to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was his disc by retrieiving it, or I'd stroke him for littering if he left it there.

stroking a player for "littering" when his disc is irretreivably high is wrong. the disc can be retreived after the round. speed of play dictates that a reasonable attempt be made, but then its time to move on. a littering stroke is far outside the spirit of the game, and i doubt would be upheld by any TD. (even the unwise ones who rescind the 2MR)

But what about stroking it for lost disc? Unless there are spotters, you have no sure way of telling if the disc is yours most of the time. Granted there will be exceptions (like dyed discs, or otherwise unique discs), but if it is an orange champion disc for instance, there are a whole slew of orange champion discs that could be mistaken for each other, not to mention orange Z-plastic looking similar to a orange champion disc.

This almost happened to me in a thicket at a tourny. I went to mark the disc that I thought was mine. Marked it, picked it up, turned it over, not my name. I had the disc in my hand and still did not know for sure it was not my disc!!!! Luckily I marked it with my mini and checked before throwing. Otherwise I would have had to take a penalty for throwing from the wrong lie. Turns out my disc was about ten feet further almost out of the thicket. The disc I found was from the previous group.

I say, with the 2 meter rule waived, the thrower has 3 minutes to prove that the disc is his. Otherwise it is a stroke and we move on. Of course, there is always the chance I will be outnumbered on this call, but is there a required second on such a situation?

What percentage of time, when considering the how to play a hole, do you spend considering the 2 meter penalty on a throw where there is any chance of violating the 2 meter rule?

It would still be 0% of the time for me.


I knew you weren't very astute, Nick. Thanks for proving it.

2 weeks on no message-boarding and the same ole stuff stays the same.




you could be a frozen caveman lawyer and nick would still be talking the same bullschit!!

I still think penalizing someone for hitting an obstacle (tree) is redundant -- but my real problem is with the 2 meter rule's placement in the rules. If it is to be retained it should be written into the OB section and consistent with OB penalties -- up to 1 meter relief should be given from the spot verticly below where the disc is suspended. And as always, OB should only be OB if declared as OB by the TD. "Any discs suspended 2 meters or higher above the playing surface are to be considered OB and played accordingly"

stroking a player for "littering" when his disc is irretreivably high is wrong. the disc can be retreived after the round. speed of play dictates that a reasonable attempt be made, but then its time to move on. a littering stroke is far outside the spirit of the game, and i doubt would be upheld by any TD. (even the unwise ones who rescind the 2MR)



Pat, then what's the difference between that and me dropping a cigarette butt on the ground and saying, "I'm not littering, I was going to get it after the round."?

lots of differences.

1. you threw your butt onto the ground deliberately, fulling intending to land it there.
2. you can still reach it.
3. since it only "flew" about 1.5 meters, it could most likely be readily identified without any doubt as yours.

the disc on the other hand

1. was not intentionally thrown into the tree (unless using the trees as a back stop or deliberately crashing tyhe canopy)
2. you cannot get to it
3. unless you saw the entire flight or some highly visible mark proves the disc is yours, you are not sure whose disc it is.

kinda tough to stroke someone for littering when you cannot even say with certainty whose litter it is.

Besides, beyond a reasonable doubt is against the rules.

803.00.C. Appeals:
(1) When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower.

Back to the ole "identifying the disc" argument again. What bearing does the presence or abscence of the 2m rule have on the lost disc rule?

If a disc is lost or cannot be identified in the tree, doesn't the lot disc come into play, completely independent of the 2m rule? Alternatively, if the 2m rule is in play, are you going to force the player to mark his lie under just any disc if you cannot identify it as his?

In short, are not unidentified discs in the trees always treated the same?

exactly! the 2MR can stand on its own .66 meters... it does not need the threats of lost disc and/or littering penalties to force the extension of its life.

Okay, now I'm lost.

Bruce, I might be slow and narrow-minded, but I was not offended. ;)

However, I did learn that one cannot respond to a deleted post.

how does one even attempt to reply to a deleted post? how do you even know it was there in the first place so that you can try to reply to it even though it is no longer there? :D

the littering idea is really off the wall. in addition to Pat's reasons it isn't littering -- another obvious reason is that a disc has value whereas trash is trash. it doesn't get left on the course by negligence -- rather it is left by unfortunate circumstance (a bad throw). that in itself is generally a double penalty -- the discs flight to its target was degraded (sorry for the Rummy-speak) by the tree plus the player is now without his mighty arrow for the rest of the round.

Pat, why not move 2 meters into the OB section where it belongs? -- it would thereby provide up to 1 meter of relief to help mitigate double jeopardy scenarios and it wouldn't be in some strange section of its own. Is it that you wish it to be mandated (force-fed) for all holes and courses and not up to the individual course designer or TD?

i have no problem with it moving to the OB section. popular belief is that is an "OB" rule anyway (and in fact it is!) just look at the programs from worlds.

i do not have much, if any, problem with providing relief from whatever it is the player is stuck in either. although the 1M thing usually is measured from the OB line, which doesnt always do much in the 2MR case. i have said before that the double jeopardy situation is real and can be a real problem. i could see going to a 5M relief, ala casual water, etc, as long as the 2M OB penalty still applies

i do believe that it should universally apply, though, and that will remain the sole source of our differing opinions.

In short, are not unidentified discs in the trees always treated the same?


Depends on if anyone agrees that a disc that is unretrievable in a tree is unidentified. If there is no agreement there, then there's no way to make sure the disc in a tree gets the same treatment from everybody. The way to make sure they do get treated in the same manner by everybody is to spell out explicitly in the rules what constitutes a lost disc if the disc is stuck in a tree but is unretrievable.

exactly! the 2MR can stand on its own .66 meters... it does not need the threats of lost disc and/or littering penalties to force the extension of its life.


I'm not as interested in forcing the extension of the 2MR's life as I am having a consistent set of rules. With the 2MR, I do believe the rules are already consistent and make sense, but if the 2MR is removed, then I think the other rules will have to compensate, specifically the lost disc rule, to re-establish that consistency.

I do have some concern that a disc stuck high up in a tree, knocked down within 3 minutes, is not penalized, but I'm far more concerned about the disc that could not be knocked down not getting penalized. If we can't get agreement among the 2MR opponents that an unretrievable disc deserves a penalty, how can we ever persuade them that a disc that was easily knocked down deserves a stroke?

i have no problem with it moving to the OB section. popular belief is that is an "OB" rule anyway (and in fact it is!) just look at the programs from worlds.

i do not have much, if any, problem with providing relief from whatever it is the player is stuck in either. although the 1M thing usually is measured from the OB line, which doesnt always do much in the 2MR case.

<font color="blue"> that's why, in cases where being suspended above 2 meters is declared as OB, i would favor up to 1 meter of relief in any direction from the point on the playing surface vertically below where the suspended disc lies </font>

i have said before that the double jeopardy situation is real and can be a real problem. i could see going to a 5M relief, ala casual water, etc, as long as the 2M OB penalty still applies

i do believe that it should universally apply, though, and that will remain the sole source of our differing opinions.



<font color="blue">
wow, we have nothing left then to post about :)
let's play some disc golf! :D </font>

i have no problem with it moving to the OB section. popular belief is that is an "OB" rule anyway (and in fact it is!) just look at the programs from worlds.

i do not have much, if any, problem with providing relief from whatever it is the player is stuck in either. although the 1M thing usually is measured from the OB line, which doesnt always do much in the 2MR case.

<font color="blue"> that's why, in cases where being suspended above 2 meters is declared as OB, i would favor up to 1 meter of relief in any direction from the point on the playing surface vertically below where the suspended disc lies </font>

i have said before that the double jeopardy situation is real and can be a real problem. i could see going to a 5M relief, ala casual water, etc, as long as the 2M OB penalty still applies

i do believe that it should universally apply, though, and that will remain the sole source of our differing opinions.



<font color="blue">
wow, we have nothing left then to post about :)
let's play some disc golf! :D </font>



I had a mile long response to all of these posts since Friday, but it seems they have all been properly addressed.

Hey! Keep that cheering down.

The only thing to add is that what you are talking about Paul, that a disc must be retrieved in order to be considered identified, is not in any way, shape or form related to the 2 meter delineation. Nor is it currently or in the future a challenge as Magilla�s example so clearly points out (our rules are already prepared to deal with such an eventuality).

As Pat correctly points out and Rob seconds, essentially this discussion comes down to should we have only one �mandatory penalty throw worthy restricted area� in our rules or not; because even if the 2 meter sentences are completely removed from our rules of play, TDs (wise or unwise) will still have options that accomplish what some (wise or unwise) folks say the 2 meter sentences currently accomplish.

I support the 2005 Rules Update concerning the 2 meter rules as announced as approved by the PDGA Rules Committee and the PDGA Board of Directors, that make the 2 meter sentences an option that a TD can use exactly the same way they use our inarguable Out of Bounds rules. IMO that is the �wise� course of action.

and we submit that the better approach would be simply to make the rule optional but leave it in place as the default. that saves headaches for those who will continue to use the existing rule and avoids having course signs worldwide out of sync with the "official" rules.

but anyway, sonce we're done for the moment arguing about inanities like the existence of line in two dimensional space, hows abouts we talk about the actual votes by the Rules Committee on this topic, and how the topic even made it to a vote? if the facts were widely known the vote would necessarily be over ruled. the Oversight Director should, and MUST, fulfill his obligations by looking into this situation and voiding the vote.

I'd agree with you about just allowing the opt out Pat, but for one thing. Disc golfers are more conservative than Pat Robertson praying for the death of another liberal Supreme Court Justice when it comes to trying something new; and this specific case has to do with something that a significantly large portion of the disc golf world has long wanted changed, so they deserve there chance/time to see if the 2 meter sentences really are as arbitrary and superfluous as they have been saying for all these years.

And that won't happen if the rule is opt out.

not only does history directly refute your argument, but logic does as well.

first the history... in 2005 when the rule was made optional and no prior approval was required to rescind the rule, a number of events choose to go without the rule. it is pretty clear that given a choice those TDs who wish to suspend the rule will do so.

now the logic... if as you claim a "significantly large portion" (which for the record can still mean "a sizable minority") want to play without the rule, then they will jump at the chance to play without it - especially if they dont even need a prior approval to rescind it.

so you see that history does in fact reflect what logic predicts.

now, about that vote... where is the Oversight Director???????

Kind of hard to pray for the death of liberal judges when you are asking the US to assassinate President Chavez. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_re_us/robertson_assassination;_ylt=AlPADocaFbdyefV7nXzGH XSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-) What a tool this Pat Robertson is. Sorry about that little side bar. I just about blew my top at his audacity when I read the article.

hows abouts we talk about the actual votes by the Rules Committee on this topic, and how the topic even made it to a vote? if the facts were widely known the vote would necessarily be over ruled. the Oversight Director should, and MUST, fulfill his obligations by looking into this situation and voiding the vote.



What are you talking about? What facts are not known?

They should stop this madness and kill the rule entirely. No opt in or out. ;)

that it was considered controversial by the rules committee and/or board and therefore was not going to be included in the changes that were voted on. but at the last minute, and in the obvious absence of at least two of the rules committee memvers who were in favor of retaining the rule, the 2MR issues was included in the package of rules to be voted on. with its supporters absent (an absence that was known in advance) the rule was changed.

regardless of your position on the rule itself, this kind of rigging is unacceptable bahavior for a governing body.

Of course, it is especially infuriating for those of us who are 2 meter rule advocates!

The story you are telling sounds like a telephone tag version of what actually happened. But it is close enough. The gamesmanshp did not happen at the Rules Committee level of the process but at the Board level.

I thought it was a clever trick at the time, but now it seems not as clever.

I'm not privy to the conspiracy rumors, but don't you think the term "rigging" is just a little loaded?

As an aside, this whole debate seems to have no end. When the arguments on necessity and equity never get refuted (yes, that is my spin), out come the "Well, what about the effect of the lost disc rule", the "Well, we didn't get to vote" and now the "they rigged it" arguments.

"Rigging" probably is a little loaded. "Steamrolling" would fit better. If you tell the dissenting votes, "Oh, you don't have to be there for that; the 2-meter rule is not on the table," and then you put it on the table so that you can pass the change "unanimously," it stinks no matter what you call it. Then if you understand how the board reaches its most important decisions, by consensus rather than majority dictat, it stinks like a dead weasel.

responding to the aside... i have always argued on how i feel about the rule itself, and i consider the lost disc and littering arguments to be completely irrelevant and overall damaging to the 2MR cause.

i couldnt care less that we the players did not vote en masse... but i DO care that the folks in the responsible committees resorted to a parliamentary trick in order to pass the change.

so i will continue to push for keeping the 2MR intact as the default scenario...

and continue to ask "WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT DIRECTOR???"

As James correctly points out, the politics behind this does not amount to a worthy argument for the retention of the 2 meters sentences as mandatory. Such misdirection�s are easily discernable.

Updating our rules so that it is just like designating other restricted areas on courses is clearly a reasonable and well thought out development. There is no doubt that if such a rule were being considered for inclusion as a new rule that it wouldn't find any traction.

Opt in/Opt out; so long as it is an option I am more or less glad that it will no longer be mandatory.

then please become a unifying, vocal supporter of retaining it as the default with a request-free opt-out! this is your chance to be a uniter not a divider!

as far as the politics go, no, politics are not a worthy issues when it comes to deciding rules.

BUT, when controversial changes are rammed through using some rather sketchy politics, those politics became a legitimate issue.

maybe it needs its own thread???

where is the oversight director?

The 2 meter sentences in my opinion do not substantiate themselves enough to be a default rule; this anymore than saying all ground covering other than grass are OB. If a TD or Course Designer deems that a certain elevated course obstacle needs to be designated as a 2 meter (or even 1 meter) restricted area then I am perfectly fine with that.


BUT, when controversial changes are rammed through using some rather sketchy politics, those politics became a legitimate issue.



It is extremely irresponsible and reprehensible (IMO) to insinuate such �hearsay� and pure �gossip� like that.

And even if true, which I doubt, it still does not provide even a last ditch reason or argument for the retention of the 2 meter sentences as mandatory. (Note: I�m not calling Bruce a liar, just saying that I question his account in light of other publicly available information � provided by the PDGA Board of Directors and Rules Committee.)

The Mandatory 2 Meter rule supporters are essentially saying �We know the needs of course design better than all other TDs and Course Designers and you WILL DO IT OUR WAY!� regardless of logic, ration, experience, the concerns of a �large portion� of active players and directors.

If that is not a form of tyranny and political stonewalling than what is?

there are NO mandatory 2MR proponents here. even those of us who believe strongly that the 2MR has a very legitimate place as the default scenario agree that should TD wish to go down a wayward path that does not include the 2MR, then that is their perogative.

our olive branch has been extended for quite some time. all you are doing is having your pigeons [I'm a potty-mouth!] on it.


It is extremely irresponsible and reprehensible (IMO) to insinuate such �hearsay� and pure �gossip� like that.

but it wouldnt be so "irresponsible and reprehensible" if it proves to be true, now would it?!?

WHERE'S THE OVERSIGHT DIRECTOR???

but it wouldnt be so "irresponsible and reprehensible" if it proves to be true, now would it?!?



Actually it still would be considering he was a PDGA Board Member and that he only provided (strangely) the parts of it that support his position and not the whole story. And even if he did that, this is hardly the appropriate place.

Again, I see such a tactic as a clear case of witch hunting. Even by answering such spurious charges they only give them undeserved credence.

You act as if I have some hidden influence over this process, that if I said,"Let it be opt out." then it would be resolved. I assure you I have no more than a member in good standings' level of influence over this process. I am just (trying) to discuss it. Looking for consensus based on logic and reason, not on compromise and politics.

i am willing to bet that if you and i got together and approached the powers that be with a proposal to retain the 2MR as the default scenario, but permanently enshrine the ability for a TD to waive off the rule without prior approval by the Competition Director, and offered the following reasons to support our proposal:

1) it provides as much flexibility to the TD as any of the proposed changes to the 2MR;
2) it completely eliminates the impact on and park and tee signs worldwide;
3) it is consistent with a most fundamental concept in golf - play continues from where it ended;
4) is embraces the change while protecting the rules for those many TDs and courses for whom and on which it makes complete sense.

that we would be greeted quite warmly.

if we further proposed that the 2MR be moved to the OB section of the rulebook, and that 1M relief in any direction other than towards the pin, or 5M relief away from the target on the LOP, be granted to mitigate the double jeopardy situations, that we would experience a rather painless acceptance of our proposal

i am so convinced that this would happen i will warranty the outcome with this promise:

Should you accept this proposal and we together present our unified case to both the Rules Committee and the Board, if it is not accepted as the next iteration of the 2MR, i will refrain from posting on any rules thread for a period of two years from the final Board decision.


i further believe that while some posters here are completely opposed to any changes at all, they would find this solution superior to the one that pushes the 2MR to the glossary and require the TD to turn it back on if he wants to use it.

think it through... my offer will stand until it becomes too late to re-alter the new rule.

If that proposal is even considered, I will propose that water in all forms (includes snow and ice and what would now be considered casual water from rain and flooding) and cement/asphalt on any course be considered OB unless the TD determines that it should not be OB, so the rule was consistent with this approach to 2m.

I appreciate your attempt to unify our efforts as concern this proposed rules update relating to the 2 meter sentences and I would like to work with you on it; however I must point out two seemingly glaring issues your proposal raises:

1) It is phrased as an "ultimatum". I am guessing from watching you here on the message board that you yourself do not respond well to ultimatums or threats. I would further guess that the PDGA Board of Directors and PDGA Rules Committee (and certainly myself) do not respond well to them either. There really is no compromise in what you propose from my stand point.
2) The update, as concerns the 2 meter sentences, accomplishes the same thing as you propose. The 2 meter sentences or new definition found (properly) in the glossary allows any TD or Course Designer to use the 2 meter option for a specific course object, hole, group of holes or even the entire course.

Again, I think you and others here are overestimating our power and influence over this process. We are merely discussing something that interests us; it has no weight with the PDGA Rules Committee or PDGA Board of Directors.

Again though, I do appreciate your attempt to unify. I do think that we, as a discussion are getting somewhere, and that is a good thing.

how is it an ultimatum? ultimatums say something like "do this or else". i am saying "if you do this, i will do..." that NOT an ultimatum.

i do not argue that the update does not do everything my proposal does. my point is that it does MORE! specifically, it obsoletes many course and tee signs. further it puts the burden of the change on users of the current rule, rather than those who wish to change it. it would be far more fair to ask those who wish to make the change to take on the burden of explanations at the events, etc.

A more indepth response: (Again, I appreciate the tone of Pat's post and want to reply in kind)

i am willing to bet that if you and i got together and approached the powers that be with a proposal to retain the 2MR as the default scenario, but permanently enshrine the ability for a TD to waive off the rule without prior approval by the Competition Director, and offered the following reasons to support our proposal:

1) it provides as much flexibility to the TD as any of the proposed changes to the 2MR;
<font color="green"> But as Chuck correctly points out, it seems to �encourage� its use rather than placing it properly among a host of options available to the designer or td. </font>
2) it completely eliminates the impact on and park and tee signs worldwide;
<font color="green"> Progress means change, there�s no avoiding it, and if you try it just leads to larger problems. Besides, I have never seen a tee sign say that the 2 MR is in effect. </font>
3) it is consistent with a most fundamental concept in golf - play continues from where it ended;
<font color="green"> In disc golf we play from our marked lie on the playing surface, not where the disc came to rest. This does not change under the proposed update; it is actually clarified elegantly in the update. </font>
4) is embraces the change while protecting the rules for those many TDs and courses for whom and on which it makes complete sense.
<font color="green"> The 2 meter option is still there within the update as currently worded. Any designer or td that feels that the 2 meter rule, in it�s current form, makes complete sense, will be free to continue to use it. The good thing is that those many TDs and courses for whom and on which it makes no sense, will not have to �opt out� of it. As Chuck again correctly points out, having the 2 meter sentences as �opt out� would be the equivalent of making all concrete or water OB and forcing designers and tds to �opt out� of them, when that is neither practical nor advisable. </font>
that we would be greeted quite warmly.
<font color="green"> No more warmly than they would greet our unified approval of the change as already proposed and approved by them and the PDGA Rules Committee. </font>

if we further proposed that the 2MR be moved to the OB section of the rulebook, and that 1M relief in any direction other than towards the pin, or 5M relief away from the target on the LOP, be granted to mitigate the double jeopardy situations, that we would experience a rather painless acceptance of our proposal
<font color="green"> I am not actually a fan of this idea, because the very nature of the 2 meter sentences do not lend themselves well to the definition of Out of Bounds or Restricted Areas, which are marked by a vertical plane extending upwards and downwards to the (next, if applicable) playing surface (another thing in dire need of definition which IS defined in the approved update). It should be kept as a separate option that TDs can use or not. </font>
i am so convinced that this would happen i will warranty the outcome with this promise:
Should you accept this proposal and we together present our unified case to both the Rules Committee and the Board, if it is not accepted as the next iteration of the 2MR, i will refrain from posting on any rules thread for a period of two years from the final Board decision.
<font color="green"> No such promise is necessary, nor the contrary which might lead to your self-imposed exile. Enjoy the discussion and see if your fears concerning the update are founded or not. Don�t make up your mind prior to direct experience of play under the revisions that your fears are real. </font>
i further believe that while some posters here are completely opposed to any changes at all, they would find this solution superior to the one that pushes the 2MR to the glossary and require the TD to turn it back on if he wants to use it.
<font color="green"> Though I feel a certain level of compassion and understanding for folks fearful of change, I know that change is inevitable. It simply is the way of the world. And to fight it or resist it is to act in conflict with that nature, and will only lead to disillusionment and sadness.
TDs and course designers are already, properly, required to �turn on� restricted areas on their courses: Out of Bounds, Restricted Casual Areas, Tee Pads, etc. This will be no different.</font>
think it through... my offer will stand until it becomes too late to re-alter the new rule.
<font color="green"> Don�t be so dramatic. It will never be too late to alter the updates. As with all things, short of God, we are all a work in progress. </font>

how is it an ultimatum? ultimatums say something like "do this or else". i am saying "if you do this, i will do..." that NOT an ultimatum.

i do not argue that the update does not do everything my proposal does. my point is that it does MORE! specifically, it obsoletes many course and tee signs. further it puts the burden of the change on users of the current rule, rather than those who wish to change it. it would be far more fair to ask those who wish to make the change to take on the burden of explanations at the events, etc.



Pat, as Carlton stated in the interview, those who oppose the use of the 2 meter sentences have long had to deal with it; they deserve their chance now.

watching a mistake unfold is NOT "fear of change"

watching a mistake unfold is NOT "fear of change"



Fear of the "unknown" is.

Your position has been tried already Pat. 2005 was a test run of what you proposed as well as providing insight into what the �opt in� proposed update will be like. And the challenges you cite have not arisen.

As matter of fact as people accepted the 2 meter penalty, they now matter of fact mark their lie and play on with no penalty. If a tree is declared as a special 2 meter tree, people have had no issue taking special note of it (John Biscoe). Identified discs 40 feet up have been later found to be incorrectly identified and our rules have proven that they are capable of handling such situations (Magilla). The only �mistake� that could be made now is not to continue down our chosen path and see this issue, and all rules update issues �fleshed out� in the full light of day, a place where your and my opinion one way or the other doesn�t matter a lick.

says you.

thanks for reverting to your normal self. see you next time i make the mistake of taking you off of ignore

says you.

thanks for reverting to your normal self. see you next time i make the mistake of taking you off of ignore



Pat, don't run off again. Where do you disagree with me? You were doing fine there, don't give up so easily...

If that proposal is even considered, I will propose that water in all forms (includes snow and ice and what would now be considered casual water from rain and flooding) and cement/asphalt on any course be considered OB unless the TD determines that it should not be OB, so the rule was consistent with this approach to 2m.


You do that.

We're running off on tangents now again.

Paul, do you or do you not understand that there is no actual conflict between the 2 meter rule and the lost disc rule? That what you are actually asking for is a "NEW" standard for identifying discs which would apply to all situations not just one where a disc was up in a tree?

Example a disc lands in the middle of a designated casual area 20 feet within a thorn bush. The entire group saw the disc fly approximately into that spot, and they can all see in there and see that it is the players disc. Under your proposal if the player does not crawl in there and retrieve the disc he must declare it lost and take a penalty throw. This event though the TD declared the area casual with the intent that players not have to go into it but play from a drop zone or distance.

While I don't necessarily have a challenge with your idea, it clearly has no direct relation to this discussion, it is purely related to "identifying a disc" which is a separate and distinct issue from no penalty throw for a disc coming to rest 2 meters above the playing surface.

The problem with the thorny bush example is that usually you can read the disc from the outside of the bush. Nine times out of ten a disc stuck 40 feet up in a tree is going to be immensly more difficult to read identifying marks. When there are 90 people on the course for a tournament, identifying discs becomes fairly important.

The problem with the thorny bush example is that usually you can read the disc from the outside of the bush. Nine times out of ten a disc stuck 40 feet up in a tree is going to be immensly more difficult to read identifying marks. When there are 90 people on the course for a tournament, identifying discs becomes fairly important.



The point remains; there are other situations besides disc above the playing surface where recovery of the disc is very difficult.

Again, this is an identification question not a 2 meter rule question. And our rules already provide for all such situations, as Magilla's example points out. If the disc is later determined not to be his, his score is corrected according to the rules. Very simple.

803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE
A. A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.

B. The player whose lie was played by the offending player shall be given an approximate lie as close to the original lie as possible, as determined by the offending player, a majority of his or her group, or an official. See section 803.10 C if the disc has been declared lost.

Again, if you guys want to change the way we identify discs, go for it. I doubt it will gain traction with the PDGA Rules Committee, but who knows�

Anyone notice that when Paul and Pat's arguments evaporate under logic that they call foul and run away, or is that just me? ;)

Anyone notice that when Paul and Pat's arguments evaporate under logic that they call foul and run away, or is that just me? ;)


LOL. Evaporate under what?

actually, mine just disappear under the thick heavy shadow of non-existant lines in 2 dimensional space :D

Anyone notice that when Paul and Pat's arguments evaporate under logic that they call foul and run away, or is that just me? ;)


LOL. Evaporate under what?




Paul, do you or do you not understand that there is no actual conflict between the 2 meter rule and the lost disc rule? That what you are actually asking for is a "NEW" standard for identifying discs which would apply to all situations not just one where a disc was up in a tree?



OK, then play ball...

actually, mine just disappear under the thick heavy shadow of non-existant lines in 2 dimensional space :D



Was that an argument for the continued mandatory inclusion of the 2 meter sentences? Or are you still running away?

Anyone notice that when Paul and Pat's arguments evaporate under logic that they call foul and run away, or is that just me? ;)



Have I been proven incorrect in this assessment?

Paul are you ready to concede the disconnect between lost disc and the 2 meter sentences?

Pat do you have anything besides self-projections?

yes i do, but unfortunately they are lost on you and your closed mind and self righteous attitude

Projection.

Not to mention acquiescence on the point of running away.

Far be it from me to argue your point for you; but didn�t you say that you have little problem with the 2 meter rule being limited to within 10 meters of the pin? What happened to that?

You�re not basing your position on your dislike of me are you?

You�re not basing your position on your dislike of me are you?

undistilled projection with a dash of self-loathing!

actually nick, just drop the "projection" and all the other pop psychology you've been throwing around lately. it IS an effective rhetorical flourish since it convicts the accused without benefit of trial, but in terms of furthering the discussion it is the equivalent of "WAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAA WAAAA"

grow up a little bit and people might one day enjoy a real discussion with you.

grow up a little bit and people might one day enjoy a real discussion with you.



"WAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAA WAAAA"


Drumroll! Symbol! Tah Dahhhhhhh!

LOL!

(This is just too dam easy sometimes...)

Son of a gun if I didn't take another 2 meter penalty in a tournament this past weekend. I was going for the "low slow turnover through the tunnel and down the path" shot, but I yanked my drive high and pegged a tree fairly close to the tee and stuck.

Poor shot. Poor result. Penalty incurred.

I'm pretty dang sure that one of the basic arguments against the 2MR penalty, back when people actually debated it instead of just pimping their personal rhetoric, was that it almost never happened and was juts random bad luck.

I've taken quite a few penalties from this rule lately, so that rules out the "never happens" thing.

They've been poor shots that missed their targets, so there was no "bad luck" involved. Sure I've had "good luck" with poor shots that didn't stick, but "bad luck" almost never comes into play on these penalties. (I had a great roller hit a rock once and come to rest above 2 meters in a casual round. Now that was bad luck!)

Oh well. Not looking to hear the exact same thing from Nick or Rob for 437,253rd time. I just wanted to report on reality and the 2 meter rule as it occurs in actual play.

Wouldn't your shot have been just as "bad" without the penalty if you hit the tree so close to the tee? The fact you yanked it high versus low would have still been a yank that didn't get too far and yet one gets an extra penalty.

And only gets the penalty if it sticks.

Wouldn't your shot have been just as "bad" without the penalty if you hit the tree so close to the tee? The fact you yanked it high versus low would have still been a yank that didn't get too far and yet one gets an extra penalty.


I'll bite and say "yes", there are equally bad shots that also deserve penalties but do not get them.

But then not every single soul who goes over the speeding limit gets ticketed. Only those who are "unlucky" enough to get caught, to use your vernacular, are ticketed. That doesn't mean no one should be ticketed if everyone isn't ticketed, right?

But then not every single soul who goes over the speeding limit gets ticketed. Only those who are "unlucky" enough to get caught, to use your vernacular, are ticketed. That doesn't mean no one should be ticketed if everyone isn't ticketed, right?




That's a societal choice. It's possible to have 100% ticketing for speeding or preventing speeding at a certain location with speed bumps or strips being passive options. If we could have close to 100% certainty for a "stick" then the 2m penalty would be acceptable.

Wouldn't your shot have been just as "bad" without the penalty if you hit the tree so close to the tee? The fact you yanked it high versus low would have still been a yank that didn't get too far and yet one gets an extra penalty.


The hole was long and difficult. It took a really good drive *AND* either a really good upshot or a really good putt in order to three it. Most people got fours. Getting stuck got me a five, and that was fair. Our card went 4-5-5. (The other 5 was also a tree stroke! Imaging that, two 2 meter penalties on one card on one hole!)

The next round with a foursome we went 3-4-4-6. The three was a really good drive and a great upshot.

As for yanking high or yanking low: with the 2 Meter Rule in effect, yanking low is always a much better shot than yanking high. They are not equal and the smart player will be playing "gap to low" on a tunnel. If there is no 2 Meter Rule, then there is no difference in high versus low, left versus right in the fairway, or many other aspects of course management.

If we could have close to 100% certainty for a "stick" then the 2m penalty would be acceptable.


By that logic, Chuck, we should abolish every rule in the rulebook, starting with the stance rules. I'd be happy if we could make a start and have a 10% chance of getting called on a stance violation.

* I'd be happy if we could make a start and have a 10% chance of getting called on a stance violation

It's DG societal choice on the level of enforcement, just like traffic violations.

But then not every single soul who goes over the speeding limit gets ticketed. Only those who are "unlucky" enough to get caught, to use your vernacular, are ticketed. That doesn't mean no one should be ticketed if everyone isn't ticketed, right?




That's a societal choice. It's possible to have 100% ticketing for speeding or preventing speeding at a certain location with speed bumps or strips being passive options.


Pretty good analogy, though, don't you think? And so it's a "societal choice" -- a practical one, too, I would say, because we can't ticket everyone. (What do you mean, it's possible? You can't put as many police as there are speeders on the road, can you? And would you ticket everyone who is going 1 mile over? Really? You think it's possible?)

Admit it, everyone who goes over the speed limit knows there's a chance of getting ticketed, just as everyone who tries to throw over a tree knows there's a chance to get stuck over 2m. The ticket and the 2MR both serve as a penalty and as a deterrent, even if you can't ticket everybody and even if all discs thrown into trees don't stick.

If we could have close to 100% certainty for a "stick" then the 2m penalty would be acceptable.


Wait -- I lost your thread here. Are speeding tickets unacceptable because there isn't a 100% certainty you will be ticketed when you overspeed?

Besides, for discs that do stick, there is a 100% certainty that you will be penalized (at least, where the 2MR is in effect). The certainty comes from the bad result, not from the absolute predictability of the throw.

Heck, I've thrown into water with what at first appeared to be a pretty good shot, but the disc faded in anyway. I would have predicted a good result but ended with a bad one.

And I've had a disc fly into and out of OB, when I thought for sure it was a goner. I would have predicted a bad result and got a good one.

So where is the certainty in any throw? Seems to me that I can't know the result, not for certain, until the disc finally stops. Right?

No need to rehash the whole 2m thread. Rhett posted his story and has to rely on dubious logic that a high yank is defacto more "bad" than a low yank and should sometimes be additionally penalized. Don't think so. The only people who matter in this are designers and TDs. They'll make the call on 2m just like they do on OB and suffer the potential barbs on their choices, as if we/they don't already have thick skin for dealing with other issues.

Rhett posted his story and has to rely on dubious logic that a high yank is defacto more "bad" than a low yank and should sometimes be additionally penalized.


It's called "course management" Chuck. If a tree-lined fairway has sticky disc catching trees on one side and sparse disc-rejecting trees on the other, the smart play is to throw towards the less-sticky side of the fairway. If you can cut a corner on the sticky side, there is additional risk but also reward.

That would be smarter independent of any 2m penalty because an accidental tree hit on one side would likely progress farther.

No need to rehash the whole 2m thread.


Ah, I've made a strong argument, so again the quick retreat...

Rhett posted his story and has to rely on dubious logic that a high yank is defacto more "bad" than a low yank and should sometimes be additionally penalized. Don't think so.


He didn't say that. You inferred it, and I'm saying with my example that's an incorrect inference.

The only people who matter in this are designers and TDs.


Sorry, anyone who plays the game matters in this. We all need to know and understand the rules.

They'll make the call on 2m just like they do on OB and suffer the potential barbs on their choices, as if we/they don't already have thick skin for dealing with other issues.


Well, even people who volunteer to take on a responsibility must also be held accountable, right? Well, maybe not 100% of the time -- only some small percentage of the time do we hold people accountable. Still, even a small percentage can be annoying and a deterrent to bad decision-making. Hey, whaddaya know, there's that analogy again...

It's called "course management" Chuck. If a tree-lined fairway has sticky disc catching trees on one side and sparse disc-rejecting trees on the other, the smart play is to throw towards the less-sticky side of the fairway. If you can cut a corner on the sticky side, there is additional risk but also reward.



Try that reasoning on this course! Miraculously I didn't get stuck in any of them :)

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/thelung-Goodman.jpg

You can continue to duke it out with Nick and Rob. I helped influence the rule change for this year and 2006 after many years in the trenches so it lines up with OB rules. I'm satisfied that it makes sense for TDs and designers to determine the fate of players whose shots go awry. No retreat. The battle is over for now. No more shots needed.

You can continue to duke it out with Nick and Rob.


I'd rather not.

I helped influence the rule change for this year and 2006 after many years in the trenches so it lines up with OB rules. I'm satisfied that it makes sense for TDs and designers to determine the fate of players whose shots go awry. No retreat. The battle is over for now. No more shots needed.

.
I see. Not so much a retreat or a cease-fire as a "you-won-the-darn-war-already"!

I didn't use the "war is won" just the "battle is over." Who knows how it might evolve in the future? Build a course, run an event and you can have the 2m rule as if nothing has changed.

except you'll have to make sure you announce it, and preferably advertise it on any pre-event promos you do. then you'll have to deal with the guys who didnt hear it during the meeting.

so nothing has changed... except a whole lot of things.

You can continue to duke it out with Nick and Rob. I helped influence the rule change for this year and 2006 after many years in the trenches so it lines up with OB rules. I'm satisfied that it makes sense for TDs and designers to determine the fate of players whose shots go awry. No retreat. The battle is over for now. No more shots needed.



Chuck, I'd much rather have you and Dave respond to these detractors than Nick and i :p

i want to see if they move away from discussing the merits of the rule and sink to making personal attacks instead. so far you've pointed out that the tree worked as an obstacle and penalized the shot that sticks without any need for an additional penalty. you've also pointed out that you favor the 2 meter rule to be like OB where a TD must opt in and turn it on for it to be in effect. How would you summarize their response to your position so far? :confused:

...so far you've pointed out that the tree worked as an obstacle and penalized the shot that sticks without any need for an additional penalty.


Rob, it looks like you conveniently forgot the part where most players were getting 4s when they missed that first tree off the tee. Without the 2 meter penalty I also score a 4 on the hole, meaning that there was absolutley no real penalty for hitting that tree without the 2 meter rule.

I'll bite and say "yes", there are equally bad shots that also deserve penalties but do not get them.



Like hitting a tree and not sticking in a tree?
Like throwing it into water and skipping off of water and landing in bounds?
Like hitting the rim of the basket and rolling 80 feet away?
Why not for landing upside down?
Why not for hitting a tree 40 feet up and tumbling to 1.99 meters above the playing surface?

What exactly makes a disc stuck more than 2 meters above the playing surface penalty worthy and why not give the TD (as in OB and Special Condition Areas) the power to decide when and if an �additional� penalty throw is necessary?

A) It has always been that way.
B) It is a more egregious violation. Such a bad shot, much more than the same one that dropped to the playing surface, that you have to have a penalty throw.
C) I know better than the TDs and Course Designers at their �OWN� courses what areas need to be restricted.
D) People will aim for trees, this stops that. (Sure it does�)
E) I can�t be found agreeing with Nick Kight.

It's not a question of penalizing bad shots, it is a question of penalizing for landing within a TD or Course Designer designated restricted area.

Designating such areas should not be the responsibility or our Rules of Play. That it has, in ONLY this one case (the 2 meter sentences) is as clear an indication of it's inappropriate nature.

This is what 2 meter supporters need to find a valid argument concerning. The rest is only so much opinion based on familiarity.

You can continue to duke it out with Nick and Rob.


I'd rather not.
<font color="blue"> You never do. You don't do discussion. You plunk down a tired old, completely discredited, argument and then run away mad when anyone reveals it as such. </font>

I helped influence the rule change for this year and 2006 after many years in the trenches so it lines up with OB rules. I'm satisfied that it makes sense for TDs and designers to determine the fate of players whose shots go awry. No retreat. The battle is over for now. No more shots needed.

.
I see. Not so much a retreat or a cease-fire as a "you-won-the-darn-war-already"!


<font color="blue"> Let us all hope! </font>

...so far you've pointed out that the tree worked as an obstacle and penalized the shot that sticks without any need for an additional penalty.


Rob, it looks like you conveniently forgot the part where most players were getting 4s when they missed that first tree off the tee. Without the 2 meter penalty I also score a 4 on the hole, meaning that there was absolutley no real penalty for hitting that tree without the 2 meter rule.



By your logic then Rhett, you might as well cut down that tree, because the hole plays the same with or without it. Without the 2 meter rule there is no risk in hitting and possibly sticking in the tree.

Is it that way for all trees in your opinion, Rhett?

I guess even kittens fight sometime.... http://selfdestruct.net/kitties/cat_0083.jpg
But can't we all get along?
http://www.saltcitycatclub.org/PhotoGallery/Images/leaningkittens.jpg

I like the kittens, but I'd like even more for Rhett to directly respond to the clear and unmistakable outcome of his own arguments logic.

However, it is apparent that logic has little to do with his position on this topic; he simply "feels" that it is right to add extra penalty throws to bad shots that stick above 2 meters.

Nevermind you why! :o:p :D;)

why should he respond? every time someone provides reasons to keep this rule you provide a list of reasons that no one every said! then you add your trademark incessant abusive rhetoric. i am truly astonished that a human being could somehow believe that the rest of his species could feel good about having anything to do with someone who so consistantly dishes out the verbal lashing that you dish out.

doesnt a little voice EVER start talking to you, saying things like "hmm, ya know i may have been a little bit harsh today..." ? i'm betting it does, because i am giving your defenders the benefit of the doubt at this point. so i ask you, please, next time you hear that voice, embrace it. listen to what its saying. take its words to heart. there is still time to save yourself.

By your logic then Rhett, you might as well cut down that tree, because the hole plays the same with or without it. Without the 2 meter rule there is no risk in hitting and possibly sticking in the tree.

Is it that way for all trees in your opinion, Rhett?


Nick, you forgot to really finish that argument off in your trademark style: by informing the masses that Rhett Stroh wants all trees on all courses cut down immediately!


Nick, I don't understand your argument above. The hole does not play the same with or without the tree. I hit that tree and stuck, and got a 2 meter penalty and a 5. Those who played the hole more skillfully got 4s. One guy played that hole great and got a 3. The tree(s) made a huge difference in the scores.

Where in the heck did you come up with putting words in my mouth that say to cut down the tree because it doesn't make any difference??????????

You can continue to duke it out with Nick and Rob.


I'd rather not.



You never do. You don't do discussion.


I said I'd rather not "duke it out" with you.

You equate duking it out with discussion?.....

You plunk down a tired old, completely discredited, argument and then run away mad when anyone reveals it as such.


.................................................. Oh, that's right, you do.

Here, possibly, Rhett:



...so far you've pointed out that the tree worked as an obstacle and penalized the shot that sticks without any need for an additional penalty.


Rob, it looks like you conveniently forgot the part where most players were getting 4s when they missed that first tree off the tee. Without the 2 meter penalty I also score a 4 on the hole, meaning that there was absolutley no real penalty for hitting that tree without the 2 meter rule.



If there is no penalty for simply hitting the tree, then what is the point of having it there? So some poor sod can get an occasional 2 meter penalty throw!?! That is neither fair to the play nor the tree.

Paul,

Did you notice that you still haven't addressed the issue you yourself brought to this discussion. You see, you offer an idea, we discuss it by looking at it carefully. Some of us disagree with your main point, and then you tell us why we are mistaken.

Why are we mistaken about the "non-"relation between the 2 meter sentences and Lost Disc rule?

Doesn't it interest you to finish your point?

People are already aware that I have a caustic writing style, can we move on now?

Paul,

Did you notice that you still haven't addressed the issue you yourself brought to this discussion. You see, you offer an idea, we discuss it by looking at it carefully. Some of us disagree with your main point, and then you tell us why we are mistaken.

Why are we mistaken about the "non-"relation between the 2 meter sentences and Lost Disc rule?

Doesn't it interest you to finish your point?


Finish my point? You mean repeat my point? Others got it, enough to agree or disagree with it. You didn't get it?

If you did get it, why do you want me to repeat it? Isn't this thread long enough?

he's grasping at straws, paul. he's thinking that if he can get you to repeat it again you might forget to dot an i or cross a t or mispell something. then he prove you are wrong and your logic is faulty and that he is right.

it's simple in nick's world ya know

Paul,

Did you notice that you still haven't addressed the issue you yourself brought to this discussion. You see, you offer an idea, we discuss it by looking at it carefully. Some of us disagree with your main point, and then you tell us why we are mistaken.

Why are we mistaken about the "non-"relation between the 2 meter sentences and Lost Disc rule?

Doesn't it interest you to finish your point?


Finish my point? You mean repeat my point? Others got it, enough to agree or disagree with it. You didn't get it?

If you did get it, why do you want me to repeat it? Isn't this thread long enough?



Paul, the point we are waiting for you to address is: how is your lost disc issue any different with the elimination of the 2 meter rule? If a disc sticks so high up in a tree that it can't be identified by the group -- it is lost with or without the 2 meter penalty turned on. There can't be a 2 meter penalty invoked until the disc in question is identified as the disc that was thrown. So -- and please explain why you are suggesting otherwise -- the 2 meter rule and the lost disc penalty are mutually exclusive scenarios.

While sandalman Pat is probably onto something in saying Nick might sometimes be a little too harsh, Nick also carefully considers our rules and considers the views of those who oppose his provided they are well presented.

now instead of attacking me or Nick, address the lost disc issue.

Paul,

Did you notice that you still haven't addressed the issue you yourself brought to this discussion. You see, you offer an idea, we discuss it by looking at it carefully. Some of us disagree with your main point, and then you tell us why we are mistaken.

Why are we mistaken about the "non-"relation between the 2 meter sentences and Lost Disc rule?

Doesn't it interest you to finish your point?


Finish my point? You mean repeat my point? Others got it, enough to agree or disagree with it. You didn't get it?

If you did get it, why do you want me to repeat it? Isn't this thread long enough?



Paul, the point we are waiting for you to address is: how is your lost disc issue any different with the elimination of the 2 meter rule? If a disc sticks so high up in a tree that it can't be identified by the group -- it is lost with or without the 2 meter penalty turned on. There can't be a 2 meter penalty invoked until the disc in question is identified as the disc that was thrown. So -- and please explain why you are suggesting otherwise -- the 2 meter rule and the lost disc penalty are mutually exclusive scenarios.

While sandalman Pat is probably onto something in saying Nick might sometimes be a little too harsh, Nick also carefully considers our rules and considers the views of those who oppose his provided they are well presented.

now instead of attacking me or Nick, address the lost disc issue.


When have I attacked you? Oh well...

Look, I've said all this before:

With the 2MR, the disc high in the tree is either a) identifiable, but still penalized under 2MR, or b) likely to be your disc, but not positively id'ed, but no one cares because it would be penalized under 2MR if it were positively id'ed, or penalized under the lost disc rule if not. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Without the 2MR, the disc in the tree is either a) identifiable, therefore not penalized, or b) likely to be your disc, but not positively id'ed, and now there is reason for discussion among the group because it will be penalized if it is ruled a lost disc, not penalized if it is not.

If the 2MR is not in effect at a tournament, I'd like to make sure the lost disc rule makes clear what it means to positively identify a disc, especially one high up in a tree, so group discussions don't become unnecessarily contentious (like this thread) trying to interpret the rules.

A stronger requirement for identifying our discs than what we now have would likely lead to greater delays all the way around for organized competitive disc golf, not save time for this single very unlikely and rare instance you propose.

Also, it would seem as though you are assuming complacent dishonesty; that players would purposefully question something they wouldn't if they knew the guys was already screwed under. That has not been my experience in organized disc golf. Have you had such experiences? Has anyone?

Ride an ocelot, sprinkle glitter on a love poem; just don't act nicely to a factory-worker.

All you no-two-meter-rule advocates: read the above post. Think about it. Then quit asking that dumb question over and over.

With the two meter rule there is a stroke penalty whether the disc is identified or identifiable or not. Without the two meter rule there is an argument.

We should try to devise rules that resolve arguments, not rules that will foreseeably create new arguments.

Bruce, I've read the above post. It makes as much sense as the two-meter rule, but a little more sense than the argument that the lost disc rule should be applied differently/more stringently based on the presence/abscence of the 2m rule. :D

There is the argument already about the spot if the disc in question is the thrower's regardless of the 2m rule status.

If the disc is assumed to belong to the thrower, it is marked below the disc.

If the disc is not assumed to belong to the thrower, it is marked where it was last seen inbounds.

The difference in the spots can make a lot of difference. I can't recall where it was a major problem in the past.

All you no-two-meter-rule advocates: read the above post. Think about it. Then quit asking that dumb question over and over.

With the two meter rule there is a stroke penalty whether the disc is identified or identifiable or not. Without the two meter rule there is an argument.

We should try to devise rules that resolve arguments, not rules that will foreseeable create new arguments.



As if players having to retrieve a disc in the middle of a lake, stream, thorn bush, back of a pick up truck driving away, bush or tree within 30 seconds and throw wouldn't cause more arguments and bad feelings among players.

Bruce and Paul, do you guys have trust issues we should know about?

I can see it now:

After frantically throwing 10 rocks at a disc the thrower and 2 folks in the group "know already to be his", the disc tumbles to about 10 feet above the playing surface where the name of the player is clearly visible, but Bruce steps up and says, times up, lost disc, let's all go back and try to find a spot where we last saw his disc.

When they get to that spot, one of the guys says, "Hey, how do we know that was actually "his" disc we last saw here?" The only positive identification was back on the tee pad, right?"

Bruce, "Yeah, that's true." and off they go.

The thrower, "C'mon guys! You could see that was my disc back there!"

Bruce, �Sorry you couldn't retrieve it, so it is not positively identified. Obviously you are a conniving cheater trying to avoid a penalty stroke!"

couldnt happen.

Bruce and Paul are both gentlemen and would not dare utter word to a fellow participant during a round for fear of getting into their head.

Nick is ignoring the issue brought forth and making up wild scenarios to distract the discussion. He also uses a tone that can only be expected to create tension and ill-will. Then he throws a smiley on the end.

We all know he has no sense of humor, yet he tries to play off his antogonistic style as "funny".

Rhett is ignoring the issue brought forth and making up wild accusations to distract the discussion. He also uses a tone that can only be expected to create tension and ill-will. Then he doesn't throw a smiley on the end.

We all know he has no sense of humor, yet he tries to play off his antogonistic style as "funny".



He also doesn't even approach the topic under discussion... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Wow, Nick. You are so clever. Editing the quoted text is so smart!

Rhett is ignoring the issue brought forth and making up wild accusations to distract the discussion. He also uses a tone that can only be expected to create tension and ill-will. Then he doesn't throw a smiley on the end.

We all know he has no sense of humor, yet he tries to play off his antogonistic style as "funny".



He also doesn't even approach the topic under discussion... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



And I would have been able to shout at it, too, if it wasn't for you sad spelling mistakes!

Wow, Nick. You are so clever. Editing the quoted text is so smart!



And you BOTH need to learn to spell "antagonistic."

:D

couldnt happen.

Bruce and Paul are both gentlemen and would not dare utter word to a fellow participant during a round for fear of getting into their head.



Yea, that's what Nick expects the Disciplinary Committee to debate. Whether one PDGA member can claim that another PDGA member was "ungentlemanly." :D

exactly. thats why in 2006 i will run for Oversight Director.

And you BOTH need to learn to spell "antagonistic."

:D


Yo, it's EYE-talian. Why youse gots to be so anto-GO-nistic? :D

A stronger requirement for identifying our discs than what we now have would likely lead to greater delays all the way around for organized competitive disc golf, not save time for this single very unlikely and rare instance you propose.

Also, it would seem as though you are assuming complacent dishonesty; that players would purposefully question something they wouldn't if they knew the guys was already screwed under. That has not been my experience in organized disc golf. Have you had such experiences? Has anyone?


Your arguments on this message board have been both abusive and dishonest.

So, yes, I would want the lost disc rule clarified to protect myself from people like you.

A stronger requirement for identifying our discs than what we now have would likely lead to greater delays all the way around for organized competitive disc golf, not save time for this single very unlikely and rare instance you propose.


And tell me, how can a "rare instance" cause delays "all the way around for organized competitive golf"? And how can a helpful clarification, which is intended to avoid an argument, be a delay at all?

Also, it would seem as though you are assuming complacent dishonesty...


Except for Nick's continued poor sportsmanship on this message board (already dealt with in my above post), it's been my experience that most misunderstandings are honest ones. I think a clarification to the lost disc rule would benefit those who honestly think that if you cannot positively identify a disc, even if the disc is likely to be yours, then you should take a penalty, because that's how they interpret the rule. And they would feel you're being dishonest if you don't accept the penalty. Clarify the rule, and one avoids all that contention.

OK, ok already. You don't get my sense of humor. I see that it is impossible to have any fun with you so I'll just stick to the topic if you do.

Please provide a proposal to clarify what would be necessary to "positively" identify a disc in play. Do you mean that the thrower must physically retreive a disc and hold it in their hands in order for it to be considered positively identified? Or if visual identification enough, if so to what extent? Please also provide what should be done in the false identification of a disc in play.

Please provide full detail. I understand that you can't fill in all holes in a preliminary proposal, just do your best. Remember, this will have to be down in order for your proposal to become a rule.

As a point of interest, why do you think the PDGA Rules Committee in 25 years has never felt compelled to clarify or make more strict identification rules. Please don't do so in an insulting manner to them or me.

We'll try to be civil from here on in, ok? No kidding around. Thanks in advanced for your cooperation.

they havent in 25 years dropped the 2MR either. so why do it in the 26th year? unless maybe they CAN be improved on after all. (even tho they blew it on the 2MR deal... and needed an illegal vote to accomplish it at that!)

There is the argument already about the spot if the disc in question is the thrower's regardless of the 2m rule status.

If the disc is assumed to belong to the thrower, it is marked below the disc.

If the disc is not assumed to belong to the thrower, it is marked where it was last seen inbounds.

The difference in the spots can make a lot of difference. I can't recall where it was a major problem in the past.


It hasn't been a problem in the past because the 2MR is so easy to understand and implement. You see a disc up in a tree, it looks like yours, you take a penalty and throw from a lie marked under the disc.

I doubt anyone has ever invoked the lost disc rule in the past for discs stuck in a tree, because the 2MR has been active, and because the lost disc rule doesn't mention identifying discs stuck high in a tree specifically. The 2MR seems to cover that case, so the lost disc rule doesn't come up.

Now get rid of the 2MR. Say some new members who have never heard of the 2MR join the PDGA and get a rule book. They find out the lost disc rule says all discs must be "located" within 3 minutes. What does that mean? Does "located" mean "positively identified", as many have said?

I just want to clarify what the lost disc rule means so it's clear to everyone, now and in the future, whether or not a disc that is unretrievable and is therefore unidentified should be penalized. Period. With a well-written rule, no discussion should be needed. Either the rule should say an unretrieved/unidentified disc (say, stuck in a tree) is not penalized, or the rule should say an unretrieved disc is penalized.

See? I'm not even saying what the clarification should say. It could be penalty; it could be no penalty. I'm just saying it should say something. We may have differing opinions on whether an unretrieved disc deserves a penalty or not, but let's not have a rule book that is completely silent on the subject.

There is the argument already about the spot if the disc in question is the thrower's regardless of the 2m rule status.

If the disc is assumed to belong to the thrower, it is marked below the disc.

If the disc is not assumed to belong to the thrower, it is marked where it was last seen inbounds.

The difference in the spots can make a lot of difference. I can't recall where it was a major problem in the past.


It hasn't been a problem in the past because the 2MR is so easy to understand and implement. You see a disc up in a tree, it looks like yours, you take a penalty and throw from a lie marked under the disc.

<font color="blue"> Can you clarify for us why the 2 meter rule made the identification of the disc easier than it will be without the 2 meter rule? It seems like the same thing to me. Clearly you are saying that the impending stroke penalty would make it �more likely� for players in the group to �identify it� if the 2MR is in effect, and �more likely� that they �not identify� it if the 2MR is not in effect. </font>

I doubt anyone has ever invoked the lost disc rule in the past for discs stuck in a tree, because the 2MR has been active, and because the lost disc rule doesn't mention identifying discs stuck high in a tree specifically. The 2MR seems to cover that case, so the lost disc rule doesn't come up.
<font color="blue"> How so? If the disc is not identifiable, then it is also not above 2 meters. If it is identified as over 2 meters, then it is not lost. You can�t have both occur at the same time regardless of whether or not the 2 meter rule is in effect. To say that the 2 meter rule covers unidentified discs up in a tree is simply not accurate or logical. That is what you are saying here isn�t it?</font>

Now get rid of the 2MR. Say some new members who have never heard of the 2MR join the PDGA and get a rule book. They find out the lost disc rule says all discs must be "located" within 3 minutes. What does that mean? Does "located" mean "positively identified", as many have said?

I just want to clarify what the lost disc rule means so it's clear to everyone, now and in the future, whether or not a disc that is unretrievable and is therefore unidentified should be penalized. Period. With a well-written rule, no discussion should be needed. Either the rule should say an unretrieved/unidentified disc (say, stuck in a tree) is not penalized, or the rule should say an unretrieved disc is penalized.

See? I'm not even saying what the clarification should say.
<font color="blue"> Oh, but you most certainly are Paul. Most definitely you are. By adding �Retrieval� to the requirement of �Identification� most certainly ARE saying �what the clarification should say�. More over you are not even addressing the very primary question of:

IS ANY CLARIFICATION WITHIN OUR RULE BOOK NECESSARY?

The PDGA Rules Committee would have to consider a host of other questions if they considered your idea of retrieval as a requirement for identification.</font>
It could be penalty; it could be no penalty. I'm just saying it should say something. We may have differing opinions on whether an unretrieved disc deserves a penalty or not, but let's not have a rule book that is completely silent on the subject.


Yes, differing opinions concerning whether �retrieval� should be a part of our existing rules. What is not a question of differing opinions is that �retrieval� IS NOT part of our existing rules; or that our current rules are not fully prepared to deal with this specific situation. It simply is prepared, as people have even testified to here.

Please Consider:

<font color="green"> 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle.

803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE
A. A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.

B. The player whose lie was played by the offending player shall be given an approximate lie as close to the original lie as possible, as determined by the offending player, a majority of his or her group, or an official. See section 803.10 C if the disc has been declared lost.


803.10 LOST DISC
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins. All players of the group must, upon request, assist in searching for the disc for the full three minutes before the disc is declared lost. The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit.

B. A player whose disc is declared lost, shall receive one penalty throw. The approximate lie for the player's next shot shall be marked in-bounds nearest the spot where the disc was last seen, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official.

C. If it is discovered, prior to the completion of the tournament, that a player's disc that was declared lost had been removed or taken, then the player shall have the penalty throw for the lost disc subtracted from his or her score.

D. A marker disc that is lost shall be replaced in its approximate lie as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official with no penalty. </font>

The only discussion of identification is <font color="green"> 803.10 LOST DISC
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official.</font> Other than that it is assumed that spotters, players, officials, tournament directors, PDGA Marshals will use their judgment in identifying the thrown disc. If a mistake is made (even if the disc was recovered and the thrower and everyone in his/her group thought they had �located� the players disc) our rules deal with such situations ALREADY.

Again, I ask you to state, as clearly as possible, what you believe should be written in our rulebook to �clarify� identification of a disc in play? Furthermore for you to consider the implications for other rules in our rulebook if such a �clarification� were adopted (OB, Special Condition Areas, etc.) that have never been a challenge with the current understanding.

I appreciate your seriousness in answering our questions.

Ten loud poles, hanging on the dishcloth; ten loud poles, hanging on the dishcloth; and if one loud pole should accidentally throw crumbs to a Klingon, there'd be nine loud poles, hanging on the dishcloth.

Anybody else have a question?

Why doesn't Nick seem to grasp what some of us are saying Paul?

Disc Identification?????

That there is one of em dare golf thangies. Ummm they throw them like a frisbie but uhhhhh they hurt when you try to catchem. :D

Why doesn't Nick seem to grasp what some of us are saying Paul?



I believe I grasp it more than you do.

Paul proposes (though he refuses to flesh it out for obvious reasons) changing what "identify" means within our rules, because he thinks that players will now argue, when the 2 meter rule is not in effect, and because there is no penalty throw added to the throwers score, that the disc the thrower (or others in their group) has identified as his/hers, is not the throwers disc so that the player will now get a lost disc penalty throw to make up for the lack of a 2 meter penalty throw.

To remain civil, I will just say that that is an incorrect prediction.

I've asked repeatedly for the reasons you feel players will argue it and you only offer that it is due to the lack of the 2MR. That simply is not an adequate answer in my estimation. I believe that you are stopping short of the natural outcome, and also that if a mistake is made, our rules cover what results as well.

United Disc Golf. :p

:D:D:D:D:D

Why doesn't Nick seem to grasp what some of us are saying Paul?


Because he has an agenda, and he thinks everyone else has one, too. I'm even postulating the 2MR is gone, which fits perfectly with his agenda, but he still reacts as if he's under attack.

I'm simply asking for clarification to a rule I think has always been poorly written, regardless of the existence of the 2MR -- a player must "locate" a disc? -- what does that mean exactly? -- because I think down the road there will be problems interpreting this rule if the 2MR is removed. Ask for that much and Nick acts like I've attacked the very foundations of democracy.

If he would take a moment and simply think, you know, what harm does it do to improve the lost disc rule? Maybe we can be clearer about what "locate" means. He could say, okay, no skin off my nose, the lost disc rule could be improved...

And to think he believes (or acts like he believes) he's been civil in his last couple posts...

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I get the gist of both camps. 2 scenarios from the Flying Pig this last weekend:

#1 hole 18 at Mt. Airy. It's a right bending shot with woods all down the right side. We sent out a spotter. A player in my group threw a white disc that the spotter saw hit the top of one of the trees, but never saw it come out. It's very possible the disc could have carried through the tree into the woods. We looked for three minutes, no find. The whole time we are looking the player who threw the disc claims "it must be up in that tree." No one saw it. The player then plays it as a lost disc from the spot last seen. After the round, as we're walking back to the tourney HQ, we see a white disc at the top of said tree. He wondered if he could get his stroke back (no 2m rule was used). We explained that once a disc is declared lost it's just that, and besides, there was no way to tell if it was his disc.

#2 hole 13 at Harbin park. Down hill 363' shot with three medium sized trees in the fairway. I threw a white Aviar that went into the tree just to the right of the fairway, and didn't see it come down. When we arrived at the tree we could see a white deep rimmed disc near where mine entered the tree. My disc was not on the ground & there was no other disc in the tree. We could not see my mark on the disc, but all in the group agreed that it was my disc we were seeing. I played it as if ti was. Later in the round the disc fell & it was mine.

The rule is fine the way it is & all those who think it's not need to read rule 803.00E.

AAAnnnnd. If you change the rule to require a player "retrieve" his disc within 3 minutes, you're asking for trouble. Imagine a player trying to climb a tree with 10 seconds to left on the clock. Injuries are no fun.

Great post showing 2 real-world examples of this problem:


I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I get the gist of both camps. 2 scenarios from the Flying Pig this last weekend:

#1 hole 18 at Mt. Airy. It's a right bending shot with woods all down the right side. We sent out a spotter. A player in my group threw a white disc that the spotter saw hit the top of one of the trees, but never saw it come out. It's very possible the disc could have carried through the tree into the woods. We looked for three minutes, no find. The whole time we are looking the player who threw the disc claims "it must be up in that tree." No one saw it. The player then plays it as a lost disc from the spot last seen. After the round, as we're walking back to the tourney HQ, we see a white disc at the top of said tree. He wondered if he could get his stroke back (no 2m rule was used). We explained that once a disc is declared lost it's just that, and besides, there was no way to tell if it was his disc.


What do you think would have happened if the disc had been seen in the tree before 3 minutes were up? Would the disc have still been declared lost?

I honestly think the rulebook is silent on this, and therefore any interpretation is valid. And I think that if you had come down on one side, and the thrower had come down on the other, I wonder what would have happened.


#2 hole 13 at Harbin park. Down hill 363' shot with three medium sized trees in the fairway. I threw a white Aviar that went into the tree just to the right of the fairway, and didn't see it come down. When we arrived at the tree we could see a white deep rimmed disc near where mine entered the tree. My disc was not on the ground &amp; there was no other disc in the tree. We could not see my mark on the disc, but all in the group agreed that it was my disc we were seeing. I played it as if ti was. Later in the round the disc fell &amp; it was mine.


Great, you had an amenable group. They didn't push you to take a lost disc penalty even though you couldn't see your mark. Sounds reasonable.

Another reasonable interpretation would be for the group to ask you to take the lost disc penalty.

When the rulebook is silent, either approach can be made to sound reasonable.

My point is not that most groups won't be able to come to a decision on what to do. My point is, I'd like the rulebook to help us out so that we all come to the same decision. And it will certainly help in case you ever find yourself in a more contentious or competitive group.


The rule is fine the way it is &amp; all those who think it's not need to read rule 803.00E.


I've read it. The principle of fairness is a great idea, if everyone has the same idea on what is fair. Not everyone thinks alike. Just look at this thread regarding the 2MR.

I simply think if we know there's a gap in the lost disc rule, one that especially shows up in the absence of the 2MR, and with an easy fix to the lost disc rule, the gap is closed, then we make the easy fix.


AAAnnnnd. If you change the rule to require a player "retrieve" his disc within 3 minutes, you're asking for trouble. Imagine a player trying to climb a tree with 10 seconds to left on the clock. Injuries are no fun.


If that's your concern, then we can suggest the rule be written to prevent the climbing of trees during those 3 minutes. Or we can define "locate" in such a way that it doesn't mean "retrieve and identify".

(See, Mr. Kight, that's an example of listening to someone's point of view and making an attempt to address it, rather than just simply knocking it down.)

Paul,

Seems like you are simply refusing to see the reality of the situation. The rules work! With or without the 2MR. Those examples only further prove it.

The Rules Committee, for good reason does not deal with remote or extreme "what ifs", because they are a waste of time and energy. Common sense and giving the benefit of the doubt are the protect all. And even if the status of a disc is determined incorrectly, there are mechanisms to deal with that situation upon discovery.

Seriously, if you are interested in getting a clarification on "identifying a disc" then shoot off a message via the Contact link to the PDGA Rules Committee. The worst they'll write back is that there is no need for further clarification and they might offer an explanation of why that you'd be willing to accept, or possibly even side with you and make players "retreive" all discs.

Not listening to me or others here is not going to change anything, go to the mat. Contact the PDGA Rules Committee.

Paul,

Seems like you are simply refusing to see the reality of the situation. The rules work! With or without the 2MR. Those examples only further prove it.

The Rules Committee, for good reason does not deal with remote or extreme "what ifs", because they are a waste of time and energy. Common sense and giving the benefit of the doubt are the protect all. And even if the status of a disc is determined incorrectly, there are mechanisms to deal with that situation upon discovery.

Seriously, if you are interested in getting a clarification on "identifying a disc" then shoot off a message via the Contact link to the PDGA Rules Committee. The worst they'll write back is that there is no need for further clarification and they might offer an explanation of why that you'd be willing to accept, or possibly even side with you and make players "retreive" all discs.

Not listening to me or others here is not going to change anything, go to the mat. Contact the PDGA Rules Committee.



Wow....I was just going to post how well written Paul's reply was, but instead I will post how far away from the point Nick's post is.

If the Rules Committee never dealt in what ifs why are the rules even in existence? Some what ifs must have been debated during the change of the 2 meter rule. The what ifs point out the places where the rules lack. These were not arbitrary examples. They were concrete! The poster had two holes in which identifiable discs and 2 meter rules could have come into play. Two times in one round. Two holes is more than 10% of the holes in a round. NOT remote or extreme. Concrete, solid, and relevant.

Paul didn't say he wanted all discs to be retrieved. He only said he thought the rule should be clarified.

By posting on the board people intend to discuss matters. They do NOT intend to have their words twisted and be put down.

If the Rules Committee never dealt in what ifs why are the rules even in existence?



Alex, you are clearly not reading what I am saying:


The Rules Committee, for good reason does not deal with remote or extreme "what ifs", because they are a waste of time and energy. Common sense and giving the benefit of the doubt are the protect all.



You should understand that if they did head down the never ending road of "what if's" they would likely be as productive as we are here on the mess bored.

Again, there is nothing to stop you or Paul from sending in your suggestion or question to the Rules Committee. I doubt they will agree to discuss it, but if they do, great! There you have it! Which would be better than you just repeating that I don't get what you are saying. (unless that gives you special joy...)

Enchant Brandon Lee like a feeble buoy!

If the Rules Committee never dealt in what ifs why are the rules even in existence?



Alex, you are clearly not reading what I am saying:


The Rules Committee, for good reason does not deal with remote or extreme "what ifs", because they are a waste of time and energy. Common sense and giving the benefit of the doubt are the protect all.



You should understand that if they did head down the never ending road of "what if's" they would likely be as productive as we are here on the mess bored.

Again, there is nothing to stop you or Paul from sending in your suggestion or question to the Rules Committee. I doubt they will agree to discuss it, but if they do, great! There you have it! Which would be better than you just repeating that I don't get what you are saying. (unless that gives you special joy...)



Thank you for not taking my quote out of context where I said how these what ifs were not extreme or remote. I appreciate the effort Nick.

For Disc Identifiaction :

I Clearly mark , both the Top and Bottom of my disc's.

This way , I can see , who's disc it is , without ever turning it over or touching it.

Also Identifies your disc , when another player , throws an Identical type of disc and/or same color. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Great post showing 2 real-world examples of this problem:


I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I get the gist of both camps. 2 scenarios from the Flying Pig this last weekend:

#1 hole 18 at Mt. Airy. It's a right bending shot with woods all down the right side. We sent out a spotter. A player in my group threw a white disc that the spotter saw hit the top of one of the trees, but never saw it come out. It's very possible the disc could have carried through the tree into the woods. We looked for three minutes, no find. The whole time we are looking the player who threw the disc claims "it must be up in that tree." No one saw it. The player then plays it as a lost disc from the spot last seen. After the round, as we're walking back to the tourney HQ, we see a white disc at the top of said tree. He wondered if he could get his stroke back (no 2m rule was used). We explained that once a disc is declared lost it's just that, and besides, there was no way to tell if it was his disc.


What do you think would have happened if the disc had been seen in the tree before 3 minutes were up? Would the disc have still been declared lost?

I honestly think the rulebook is silent on this, and therefore any interpretation is valid. And I think that if you had come down on one side, and the thrower had come down on the other, I wonder what would have happened.



Had the disc been spotted within 3 min & the spotter said "yea that's about where it went in" , I would have given the player the benefit of the doubt & allowed him to play on with no added stroke. Had two players in the group diapered on the matter, a provisional would have been played and the matter would have been taken to the official.




#2 hole 13 at Harbin park. Down hill 363' shot with three medium sized trees in the fairway. I threw a white Aviar that went into the tree just to the right of the fairway, and didn't see it come down. When we arrived at the tree we could see a white deep rimmed disc near where mine entered the tree. My disc was not on the ground & there was no other disc in the tree. We could not see my mark on the disc, but all in the group agreed that it was my disc we were seeing. I played it as if ti was. Later in the round the disc fell & it was mine.


Great, you had an amenable group. They didn't push you to take a lost disc penalty even though you couldn't see your mark. Sounds reasonable.

Another reasonable interpretation would be for the group to ask you to take the lost disc penalty.

When the rulebook is silent, either approach can be made to sound reasonable.



Had someone claimed my disc was lost, I would have asked for a "reasonable" explanation as to where it could be. I would have played a provisional & asked the official what the correct score should have been.

This situation was brought to the official's attention anyway, and it turns out we made a fair call, giving benefit to the thrower.


My point is not that most groups won't be able to come to a decision on what to do. My point is, I'd like the rulebook to help us out so that we all come to the same decision. And it will certainly help in case you ever find yourself in a more contentious or competitive group.


The rule is fine the way it is & all those who think it's not need to read rule 803.00E.


I've read it. The principle of fairness is a great idea, if everyone has the same idea on what is fair. Not everyone thinks alike. Just look at this thread regarding the 2MR.

I simply think if we know there's a gap in the lost disc rule, one that especially shows up in the absence of the 2MR, and with an easy fix to the lost disc rule, the gap is closed, then we make the easy fix.



I think you'd be amazed how many times benefit to the player, common sense and fairness are used to interpret the rules. If an official's call is thought to be unfair a player has the option to file a grievance with the PDGA.



AAAnnnnd. If you change the rule to require a player "retrieve" his disc within 3 minutes, you're asking for trouble. Imagine a player trying to climb a tree with 10 seconds to left on the clock. Injuries are no fun.


If that's your concern, then we can suggest the rule be written to prevent the climbing of trees during those 3 minutes. Or we can define "locate" in such a way that it doesn't mean "retrieve and identify".



That may add more confusion than is necessary.


(See, Mr. Kight, that's an example of listening to someone's point of view and making an attempt to address it, rather than just simply knocking it down.)



Paul, I would like to personally invite you to come out and play in some local tournaments. After seeing some of these things happen in tournament play, you may come away with a different understanding of the spirit of the rules. On September 10th we are setting up a temp course at Mt. Echo Park (down by the river). I'll pay your entry fee.

Thanks for the offer, Nick. I've been to one tournament so far -- very friendly group I was in. (Of course, we were also in the bottom half of scores. In several sports, I've noticed that the closer to the bottom rung you are, the less stressed people are about the rules when playing.)

I've also played casual rounds several times with friends, so I understand the point you're making. There's theory, and there's practice. I think Rhett even pointed out once or twice, way back, that even well-written rules are not easily called on others, because people don't like to come across as jerks while playing a tournament. (Some of us save that for the message board, right, Mr. Kight?)

I think people are making too big a deal over the point I'm making. I understand we have recourse when a rule has multiple interpretations. I understand that common sense and a sense of fairness can be brought to bear where a rule falls short. I understand it's difficult to call a penalty on others even if the rule is clear. And I even understand that there's a danger in over-writing a rule.

I am with you on these points. That doesn't invalidate my point that where a rule has multiple interpretations, or where it falls short, the rule can be improved. And improved doesn't mean over-writing the rule. I really mean improved. It's up to the players to call those rules, but if we can help it, let's have them call well-written, well-understood rules.

This discussion began because someone is already trying to change the rules. I'm pointing out a place in the rules where the words may need some strengthening if that rule change happens, because not everyone thinks alike. That's all I'm saying.

Again, please don't make more of my point than this. I'm just a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences, so if someone suggests a change to the rules, if I think I can foresee a small problem, I should say something so the problem can be fixed.

I don't want the 2MR to go, but if it goes, I'd like to see the lost disc rule improved to specifically mention the case where a disc is stuck in a tree, so we all know what to do and what not to do in that instance.

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I get the gist of both camps.



Me too.

Paul, you may indeed have a point that with the removal of the 2mR, this identification rule could stand to be bolstered. (I can definitely see a situation where a disc flies in a tree, a similar colored disc is spotted in the tree, and it turns out to not be the recently thrown disc - but no humans know this.)

Off the top of my head, I don't see a fair way to apply this rule (some groups will say "sure, that's your disc" and some will not.) Perhaps this is an indirect reason to not get rid of the 2mR.

How would you recommend the rule be amended / rewritten?

(I apologize if this rewrite info is earlier in the thread, I'm just too darn lazy to look for it.)

Is the 2 meter rule in effect? (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php)

Mandatory 2MR Champions Read and Weep! :D

hey [I'm a potty-mouth!], that news is so old one can only conclude that you are trolling.

If you've played Hole 16 at Seneca, then you have to say the 2M rule comes into mind before throwing. Hole 16 is an easy righty hyzer shot. But there's so many cedars, very few people ever try it. Instead, they throw rollers.

If the 2M rule were rescinded, the rollers on 16 would STOP immediately. Guys would throw the righty hyzer and get caught in the cedars near the basket. It's a much higher percentage shot. Our cedars would certainly suffer from this too.

You can't say that repeal of the rule would have no effect on shot selection. That's flat out silly. You wouldn't throw the roller on 16 at Seneca if there was no penalty for getting caught in a cedar throwing a righty hyzer.

there is a simple solution after the 2 meter rule is eliminated as a force-fed rule for all courses and all holes:

Declare the 2 meter rule in effect for Seneca hole 16

That said, eliminating the 2 meter rule won't make holes play as easily as it may seem on paper.

The point is it is not being rescinded. The whole Seneca course can remain a bastion of 2-meterdom should the locals and TDs prefer it. It will become just another choice in 2006 added to casual relief and OB areas. The wording will remain in the rulebook with the addition of something at the beginning of it like, "The TD may designate an object, hole(s) or the whole course to abide by the following rule: (existing Disc Above the Playing Surface rule)

Interestingly, the pending change in the Lost disc penalty to "throw and distance" will probably make me consider using the 2-meter rule in certain locations more than I might have. If a particular location within 100 feet or so of the basket lends itself for discs sticking high in trees with a poor view from below, I might decide to declare that grouping of trees under the 2-meter rule so players only get a penalty and a lie under the tree if the group can watch a disc go high into it. Without 2-meter rule, a player would get the penalty AND have to go back to their original lie if the disc was lost under the proposed change for 2006.

I hope that forcing the player back to the previous lie isn't the only option being left on the table for a lost disc.

Interestingly, the pending change in the Lost disc penalty to "throw and distance" will probably make me consider using the 2-meter rule in certain locations more than I might have. If a particular location within 100 feet or so of the basket lends itself for discs sticking high in trees with a poor view from below, I might decide to declare that grouping of trees under the 2-meter rule so players only get a penalty and a lie under the tree if the group can watch a disc go high into it. Without 2-meter rule, a player would get the penalty AND have to go back to their original lie if the disc was lost under the proposed change for 2006.



Isn't that an attack on the Lost Disc rule? Eliminating the identification of the disc? Just because it goes in above 2m does not mean it stayed there.

I think it is. Benefit of the doubt will still be given to the player if the group is looking for an orange disc and one is seen suspended or where it likely would have gone. In the case of landing in a casual relief area like poison ivy or swamp, the disc won't even have to be seen as long as the group or spotter has seen the shot enter the area. The OB penalty still overrides lost disc so if the disc is lost in an OB area, you can mark the lie where it last went out if the TD didn't require a move to a drop zone or original lie.

Just because it goes in above 2m does not mean it stayed there.




It's a slippery slope but the RC wants to allow the 'reasonable person' assumption. If you watch a disc land in a pond, it's not really lost but just temporarily non-retrievable since you know it's there (assuming it's not a James Bond movie with a submarine waiting to capture the disc and decode the secret message embedded in the hot stamp).

a player would get the penalty AND have to go back to their original lie if the disc was lost under the proposed change for 2006.


so let me get this straight:

A) a disc is stuck 3M up in a cedar tree. result with 2MR is a one stroke penalty plus a nearly impossible lie. WHAT AN OUTRAGE! CALL THE RULES COMMITEE! THIS DOUBLE-PENALTY MUST BE STRIKEN!

B) a disc flies 300' down the edge of a tree lined fairway, clips a branch and richochets into a thick group of trees. the players search for three minutes but can not find it. even though they are CERTAIN where it hit the branch, the player goes back to the tee box and re-tees sitting at 2 strokes for the hole already?

this is not a double (or triple) penalty?

are you guys totally and completely nuts?